Atul Kumar Jain, Meerut V. ACIT, Meerut

MA 451/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6586 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.451/DEL/2010 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.451/DEL/2010 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.451/DEL/2010 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.451/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO.4983/DEL/2007 & CO (IN ITA NO.4983/DEL/2007 & CO (IN ITA NO.4983/DEL/2007 & CO (IN ITA NO.4983/DEL/2007 & CO- -- -47/DEL/2010) 47/DEL/2010) 47/DEL/2010) 47/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003- -- -04 0404 04 SHRI ATUL KUMAR JAIN SHRI ATUL KUMAR JAIN SHRI ATUL KUMAR JAIN SHRI ATUL KUMAR JAIN, ,, , C/O SHRI V.K.GOEL, C/O SHRI V.K.GOEL, C/O SHRI V.K.GOEL, C/O SHRI V.K.GOEL, 282, BOUNDRY ROAD, 282, BOUNDRY ROAD, 282, BOUNDRY ROAD, 282, BOUNDRY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, CIVIL LINES, CIVIL LINES, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. PAN : AAMPJ9787H. PAN : AAMPJ9787H. PAN : AAMPJ9787H. PAN : AAMPJ9787H. VS. VS. VS. VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -1, 1,1, 1, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.K.GOEL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : MS.Y.KAKKAR, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : THIS IS ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION POINTI NG OUT FOLLOWING MISTAKES:- (I) COPY OF THE ITI REPORT REFERRED TO BY THE AO WA S NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. (II) ITAT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF P.K.SHAH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. (III) ITAT FINDING THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FACTS LIKE BETTER LOCALITY ETC. IN THE VALUATION REPORT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. (IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO ARGUE ITS C ROSS- OBJECTION. 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL A ND LEARNED DR. 3. LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE REL EVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED AMO UNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER AND NOT RECTIFICATION OF ANY ERROR APPARE NT FROM THE RECORD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT :- (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER TAKEN THE GROUND ABOUT THE ITI REPORT EITHER BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE I TAT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES PLEA IN THIS BEHALF. (II) THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS PURELY A MATTER OF FA CT AND IN PARAGRAPH 8.1, THE ITAT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF P.K .SHAH HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE MATERIAL, THE ISSUE HAS BEE N DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES PLEA IN THIS BEHALF. (III) THE ERROR BEING RAISED AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF T HE ORDER AND NOT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. (IV) THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVEN FOR ARGUING HIS CROSS-OBJECTION INASMUCH AS EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE HAS B EEN CONSIDERED IN THE DETAILED ORDER. AS THE ISSUE RAI SED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION IS IN-BUILT IN THE ISSUE ITSELF BEI NG THE COST OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981, THE ENTIRE ISSUE ABOUT COST OF ACQUISITION HAS BEEN DEALT WITH WHILE DECIDING REVE NUES 3 APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS PLEA ALSO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) (R.P.TOLANI) (R.P.TOLANI) (R.P.TOLANI) (R.P.TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17.06.2011. VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR