M/s Brigade Plaza Unit Owner's Association , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

MA 375/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2732 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. VENKATESH
• Section: 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 375/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO . 2466 /BANG/201 8 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 5 - 1 6 M/S. BRIGADE PLAZA UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, BRIGADE PLAZA, NO. 71/1, S C ROAD, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 009. PAN: AAAAB5335L VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (2) (3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S HRI T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISRA , JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 15 .0 2 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22. 0 2 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS M.P. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTENDING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 05.10.2018. 2. IN THE M.P., THIS IS THE MAIN CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THA T GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED AND THE OTHER GROU NDS ARE NOT PRESSED AND THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THAT OTHER GROUNDS APART FROM GROUND NO. 1 ARE NOT PRESSED AND THEREFORE, THIS IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNA L ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE LOG BOOK OF THE R ELEVANT DATE WAS LOOKED INTO AND IT WAS FOUND THAT AS PER THE LOG BOOK, THE ARGU MENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 ONLY AND IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CANARA BANK GOLDEN JUBILEE STAFF WELFARE FUND VS. DCIT AS REPORTED IN 308 ITR 202. THIS WAS THE SECO ND SUBMISSION ON THAT M.P. NO. 375/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO. 2466/BANG/2018) PAGE 2 OF 3 DATE THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDE RED IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 350 ITR 509 O N WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY AO IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE. THE BENCH WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BASIS ON WHICH IT IS BEING STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED IN CO URSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THAT OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED. IN REPL Y, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, I REPRODUCE PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER. 3. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD . AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ONLY GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED AND THE OTHERS GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE R EMAINING GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORD ER, IT IS COMING OUT THAT IT IS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS PARA THAT LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS TO BE DECIDED AN D OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED. AS PER LOG BOOK ENTRIES OF THAT DATE ALSO , IT IS SEEN THAT ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF G ROUND NO. 1 ONLY AND NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED ON THAT DATE IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER GROUND. HENCE, I FIND NO MISTAKE IN THIS FINDING OF TRIBUNA L THAT OTHER GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DECIDED ON MERIT BY HOLDING THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF H ON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CANARA BANK GOLDEN JU BILEE STAFF WELFARE FUND VS. DCIT (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PL ACED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECA USE THE FACTS IN PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BANGALOR E CLUB VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 7 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS REPRODUCED HER EINBELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I FIND THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BANGALOR E CLUB VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND AS PER THIS M.P. NO. 375/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO. 2466/BANG/2018) PAGE 3 OF 3 JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, THE ISSUE IS COVER ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CANARA BANK GOLDEN JUBILEE STAFF WELFARE FUND VS. DCIT (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRES ENT CASE AND HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF H ONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB VS. CIT (SUP RA), I DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, I FIND THAT THERE I S NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.