SHALINI ANAND MURTHY, Mumbai V. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

MA 336/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0248 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH KISHINCHANDANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIVAS S. KOTA
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. No. 336/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 2404/MUM/2019) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shalini Anand Murthy, 2 nd floor, Jeevan Udyog 278, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Asst. CIT-17(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. ABRPM 4292 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Srinivas S. Kota Revenue by : Mr. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 01/11/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking recall/rectification the order of the Tribunal dated 12.01.2023, passed in ITA No. 2404/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee addressing the Miscellaneous Application submitted that the Tribunal has denied claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the reason that documents in support of contention that delay for investment by the assessee was due delay in the part of the building construction as per the time frame. The Ld. Counsel assessee has already filed documents in support of claim which are available on Paper Book page No. 53 to 75 filed during the course of the hearing of the appellate proceedings and therefore, non consideration of the submission fi mistake in the order of the Tribunal and therefore same need to be recalled. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal has already considered those documents in the course of the hearing and after verification of those documents, the Tribunal was of the view that in those documents only there was a correspondence regarding finalization of the drawing of various features of the flat and there on the part of the builder and therefore, during the course of the hearing the Ld. Counsel was specifically asked to file evidence in support of that delay was caused due to action of the builder but no such documents were filed during the course of the hearing. Thus the contention of the assessee that documents filed in the Paper Book have not been considered is not accordingly, there is no mistake apparent in the or ‘the Act’) for the reason that the assessee failed to submit necessary documents in support of contention that delay for investment by the assessee was due delay in the part of the building construction as The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has already filed documents in support of claim which are available on Paper Book page No. 53 to 75 filed during the course of the hearing of the appellate proceedings and therefore, non of the submission filed by the assessee mistake in the order of the Tribunal and therefore same need to be We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that as already considered those documents in the course of the hearing and after verification of those documents, the Tribunal was of the view that in those documents only there was a correspondence regarding finalization of the drawing of various the flat and there was no discussion regarding any delay builder and therefore, during the course of the hearing the Ld. Counsel was specifically asked to file evidence in support of that delay was caused due to action/inaction of the builder but no such documents were filed during the course of the hearing. Thus the contention of the assessee that documents filed in the Paper Book have not been considered is not there is no mistake apparent in the or Shalini Anand Murthy 2 M.A No. 336/Mum/2023 the assessee failed to submit necessary documents in support of contention that delay for investment by the assessee was due delay in the part of the building construction as e assessee submitted that assessee has already filed documents in support of claim which are available on Paper Book page No. 53 to 75 filed during the course of the hearing of the appellate proceedings and therefore, non- led by the assessee has crept an mistake in the order of the Tribunal and therefore same need to be We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that as already considered those documents in the course of the hearing and after verification of those documents, the Tribunal was of the view that in those documents only there was a correspondence regarding finalization of the drawing of various no discussion regarding any delay builder and therefore, during the course of the hearing the Ld. Counsel was specifically asked to file evidence in /inaction on the part of the builder but no such documents were filed during the course of the hearing. Thus the contention of the assessee that documents filed in the Paper Book have not been considered is not correct and there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The grounds raised in the Miscellaneous Application are accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (ABY T VARKEY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated:01/11/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Tribunal. The grounds raised in the Miscellaneous Application are accordingly dismissed. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is nounced in the open Court on 01/11 Sd/- Sd/ ABY T VARKEY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shalini Anand Murthy 3 M.A No. 336/Mum/2023 Tribunal. The grounds raised in the Miscellaneous Application are In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is 11/2023. Sd/- PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai