ITO, Cuddalore V. Banumathy, CHENNAI

MA 252/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5606 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J PAVITRAN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! ' # $ , & $' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (( / M.P. NO.229/CHNY/2019 (IN I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/2016) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), CUDDALORE. V. SHRI S.S. MANTHIRIKUMAR, NO.1, PALLA STREET, SOORAPPA NAICKEN CHAVADI, CUDDALORE 607 002. PAN : ANJPM 4272 A (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) (( / M.P. NO.252/CHNY/2019 (IN I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/2016) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), CUDDALORE. V. SMT. BANUMATHY, NO.1, PALLA STREET, SOORAPPA NAICKEN CHAVADI, CUDDALORE 607 002. PAN : AEIPB 0121 B (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) ,-) 1 2 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI J. PAVITRAN KUMAR, JCI T ,.-/ 1 2 / RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE 3 1 4& / DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2019 56* 1 4& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2019 2 M.P. NO.229/CHNY/19 M.P. NO.252/CHNY/19 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT 100 PER SQ.FT. ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CALCULATING INDEXED COS T OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT CORRECT. 2. SHRI J. PAVITRAN KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ACCEPT ED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT 100 PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR CALCULATING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY COGENT EVIDENCE WITH REGARD T O COST OF INDEXATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REGISTERED VALUER FIXED THE VALUE AT 39.66 PER SQ.FT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D .R., THE VALUE FIXED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AT 100/- PER SQ.FT. WAS NOT CORRECT, HENCE THE DECISION MAY BE RECONSIDERED. 3. WE HEARD SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 P ROVIDES FOR RECTIFICATION OF ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FAC E OF RECORD. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS ANY ERROR 3 M.P. NO.229/CHNY/19 M.P. NO.252/CHNY/19 APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD. IT IS A DEFINITE C ASE OF REVENUE THAT THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL FIXING THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT 100/- PER SQ.FT. IS NOT CORRECT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISI ON TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDE R. UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, REVIEW IS NOT PERMISSIBLE . THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE HAVE N O MERIT. 4. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, BOTH THE MISCELLANEO US PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (! ' # $ ) ( ... ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANES AN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. KRI. 1 ,49( :(*4 /COPY TO: 1. ,-) / PETITIONER 2. ,.-/ /RESPONDENT 3. 3 ;4 () /CIT(A) 4. 3 ;4 /CIT 5. (< ,4 /DR 6. =) > /GF.