Akaar Foundaries Pvt. Ltd., Belgaum V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Belgaum., Belgaum

MA 42/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4582 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R N SIDDHAPPAJI LD
• Assessee Lawyers: V G GURUNATHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA S. SAINI, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M A NO 42 /PAN/2015 : (ASST. YEAR : 2006 - 07 ) (ARISING OUT OF ITA 142/PNJ/2014 ) AKAAR FOUNDARIES P. LTD., VS. ACIT, RANGE - 1 , M - 31, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BELGAUM. UDYAMBAG, BELGAUM. PAN : AACCA3753D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELL ANT BY : SHRI V. G. GURUNATHAN, ADV RESPONDE NT BY : SHRI R. N. SIDDHAPPAJI, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29 /07/2016 DATE OF ORDER : 29 /07/2016 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN - AM : THI S IS THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 142/PAN/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07. SHRI R. N. SIDDHAPPA LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI V. K. GURUNATHAN ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A R THAT THE DVO HAD CONSIDERED INCOMPARABLE S WHILE VALUING THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE WRONG METHOD OF VALUATION BY THE DVO. IT WAS SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE TO BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL REHEARD. IN REPLY THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. - 2 - WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT ALL. THE ISSUE WAS IN REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE VALUATION BY THE DVO ITSELF IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FACT. THIS BEING SO WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY THE MA FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. IN THE RE SULT THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 .07 .2016. SD/ - (NARENDRA S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI - GOA DATED : 29 /07 /2016 *NANU * COPY TO: - ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI