SAROVAR HOTELS. P.LTD, V. DCWT 3(3),

MA 283/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4561 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURLI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS.283 TO 287/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF WTA NO S.05 TO 09/MUM/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SAROVAR HOTELS P . LTD. 42, MITTAL CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400020. PAN: AAACS8083L VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-(3), ROOM NO. 602,6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI-400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI M. MURLI (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.07.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THESE FIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (MAS) WERE FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN WT A NOS. 05 TO 09/M/2015 WHEREIN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE/ APPLICAN T PLEADED THAT THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE WERE DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 WHE REIN ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THERE I S AN ERROR, BEING MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 16.09 .2015 AS GROUND NO.1(B) OF THE APPEAL(S) WERE NOT ADJUDICATED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL(S). IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT IN PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVE D THAT SOLE QUESTION ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE APPLICANT WAS PROHIBITED FRO M RAISING/DEVELOPING THE PLOTS OR CONSTRUCTION WAS PERMISSIBLE, AFTER NECESSARY APPRO VAL AND SANCTION FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IT IS FURTHER AVERRED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT NO RULE/LAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD PROHIBITING THE APPLICANT FOR RAISING ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE TRIBUNAL HAVE LEFT THE QUESTION U NANSWERED. THUS AN ERROR OCCURRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE LEGAL ISSUE 2 MA NOS. 283 TO 287/M/2015 SAROVAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI DHARMESH SHAH LD AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND SHRI M. MURLI LD DR FOR THE REVENUE. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION AT PAGE NO. 120 OF PAPER BOOK (PB), WHICH IS THE PHOTOCOPY SECTION 48 & 49 OF TAMILNADU TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT AND PAGE NO. 18 OF PB WHICH IS CERTIFI CATE FROM TAHSILDAR OFFICE, CHENGALPET, TAMILNADU. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUME NT AND BY SHOWING THESE DOCUMENTS, LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO IMPRESS UPON US THAT ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR SANCTION PLAN TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. AND ON OUR SPECIFIC QU ERY AS TO WHETHER THE ANY APPLICATION FOR SANCTION PLAN FOR CARRYING OUT DEVELOPMENT AC TIVITY WAS APPLIED OR NOT FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER TAMILNADU TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT. THE LD AR OF ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. WE AGAIN ASK, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT ANY APPLICATION FOR SEEKI NG APPROVAL OF SANCTION PLAN WAS FILED BEFORE ANY OTHER COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE LD AR FOR ASSESSEE AGAIN RELIED ON PAGE NO. 18(CERTIFICATE OF TAHSILDAR) (SUPRA) TO THE PB. THU S, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE EVER APPLIED FOR RAISING/DEVELOPING THE PL OT MAKING ANY CONSTRUCTION AT THE SIDE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE LD AR FOR PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED ON 16/09/2015. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.1 (A) AND 1(B) WE WERE CONSCIOUS ENOUGH AND DECIDED BOTH THE GROUNDS ALTOG ETHER AND FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE, WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE SOLE QUESTION FOR OUR CON SIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PROHIBITED FROM RAISING/DEVELOPING THE PLOT OR CONS TRUCTION WAS PERMISSIBLE, AFTER NECESSARY APPROVAL AND SANCTION FROM COMPETENT AUTH ORITY, THUS, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE DEALT WITH ALTOGETHER. WE WERE CONSCIOU S ENOUGH WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL(S). THE APPLIC ANT/ASSESSEE CANNOT DICTATE THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR WHIMS A ND CHOICE. THE APPLICATION IS BASED ON FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS. THUS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE N O ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD WHICH REQUIRES ANY RECTIFICATION. HENCE, THE PRESEN T APPLICATION HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE M.AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.C.SHARMA ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 22/07/2016 S.K.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 3 MA NOS. 283 TO 287/M/2015 SAROVAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !'# / GUARD FILE. $ //TRUE COPY/