, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 246/CHNY/2018 [IN I.T.A.NO.456/CHNY/2014] / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI K.V. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, C/O. SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE, # 384 (OLD NO. 196), LLOYDS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 086. [PAN:ACLPV6440Q] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(1), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 26.04.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN I.T.A. NO. 456/CHNY/2014 DATED 29.10.2018 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC ALTERNATE GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS FALLING IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004- 05 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF M.P. NO.246/CHNY/18 2 THE LD. CIT(A) IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE GROUNDS OF ORIGINAL APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. IN ANY EVENT, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION IN PARA 12 OF THE APPELLANTS LETTER DATED 04.10.2010; THE REASONS STATED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION (PARA 4.2.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) ARE INCORRECT AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE GROUND, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT THE PAYMENTS NUMBERED AS 1 TO 4 FALL IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ADMITTEDLY, THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO VIZ., AGREEMENT OF SALE OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND DEPARTMENT STORE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AADHITHIYA CONSTRUCTIONS IS SINGLE PROPERTY SPREAD OVER TO VARIOUS YEARS AND WHEN THE SOURCES ARE IN QUESTION, THE SAID SOURCES ARE TO BE SEEN FOR THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 GOT BARRED BY LIMITATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THUS, THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS CONFIRMED. IN THIS CASE, THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO VIZ., AGREEMENT OF SALE OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND DEPARTMENT STORE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AADHITHIYA CONSTRUCTIONS IS SINGLE PROPERTY SPREAD OVER TO VARIOUS YEARS IS NOT UNDER M.P. NO.246/CHNY/18 3 DISPUTE. IF IT IS SO, WHEN THE SOURCES ARE IN QUESTION, THE SAID SOURCES ARE TO BE SEEN FOR THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE AND THUS, THE TRIBUNAL SUSTAINED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECTED THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30 TH APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30.04.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.