Pydi Giridhar Babu, Viskahpatnam V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), , Visakhapatnam

MA 47/VIZ/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5546 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम पीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įी दुåवूǽ आर एल रेɬडी, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी एस बालाकृçणन, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 46/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.218/Viz/2020) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year :2012-13) Pydi Venkata Ramana, Visakhapatnam. PAN: AFFPR 9971 D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) M.A No. 47/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2020) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) Pydi Giridhar Babu, Visakhapatnam. PAN: AKYPP 6502 A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸकȧओरसे/ Assessees by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR Ĥ×याथȸकȧओरसे/ Revenue by : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 03/11/2023 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2023 2 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : The captioned two Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the assessees U/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] seeking rectification of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 218 & 219/Viz/2020, AY 2012-13, dated 01/06/2023. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that originally in both the appeals the assessees have raised four grounds of appeal which are as under: “1. In the f acts and circu mstances of the case and as per law the Ld CIT(A) is not justif ied in applying the f air market value of the property sold under section 50C as determined by the DVO instead of the amount of actual consideration received by the assessee as per the registered sale deed as clai med by the assessee bef ore the Assessing Off icer and also the Commissioner of Inco me Tax (Appeals). 2. In the f acts and circu mstances of the case and as per law the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justif ied in conf irming the cost of acquisition as f air market value as on 1/4/1981 being the SRO value as on that date as adopted by the Assessing Officer instead of computing the same as per the reverse indexation method as claimed by the assessee bef ore the Assessing Off icer and also the Commissioner of Inco me Tax (Appeals). 3. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 3 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the directions of the Hon’ble Bench, the Ld. AR revised the ground in place of Ground No.1 in the original grounds of appeal in both the appeals vide letter dated 02/06/2022. The Ld. AR also further submitted that while adjudicating the appeals of the assessees, the Tribunal considered only the Revised Ground of Appeal with respect to Ground No.1 and did not adjudicate the Ground No.2 of the original Grounds of Appeal in both the appeals. Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded since the Hon’ble Tribunal did not adjudicate the Ground No.2 of the original grounds of appeal in both the appeals, even though the Ld. AR has made his submissions and arguments before the Bench at the time of hearing of the appeal, with respect to Ground No.2 in both the appeals, to that extent there is a mistake apparent from the record and therefore prayed that the same may be rectified and pass the orders as deemed fit. Per contra, the Ld. DR did not object to the submissions of the Ld. AR. 3. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. AR and perused the order of the Tribunal dated 1/6/2023. On perusal of 4 the original Grounds of Appeal as well as the Revised Ground of Appeal in both the appeals and the material available on record, we find that the Ld. AR has submitted the Revised Ground of Appeal only with respect to Ground No.1 of the Original Grounds of Appeal. However, while passing the order, the Tribunal has adjudicated only Revised Ground of Appeal in both the appeals and inadvertently did not adjudicate the Ground No.2 of the original Grounds of Appeal in both the appeals (ITA No. 218 & 219/Viz/2020, AY 2012-13). Therefore, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that Ground No.2 of the original grounds of appeal in both the appeals is left unadjudicated which is as under: “2. In the f acts and circumstances of the case and as per law the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justif ied in conf irming the cost of acquisition as f air market value as on 1/4/1981 being the SRO value as on that date as adopted by the Assessing Officer instead of computing the same as per the reverse indexation method as clai med by the assessee bef ore the Assessing Officer and also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).” 4. With respect to the above Ground No.2 of the original grounds of appeal in both the appeals, since we have heard both the sides while hearing the original appeals on 20/03/2023, we are of the considered view that this grounds needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. 5 AO for deciding the issue afresh. Accordingly, we hereby remit this Ground no.2 of both the appeals to the file of the Ld. AO to adjudicate the same denovo and decide the issue in accordance with law and on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard following the principles of natural justice. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessees are allowed as mentioned herein above. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 nd November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (दुåवूǽआर.एलरेɬडी) (एसबालाकृçणन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 22.11.2023 OKK - SPS आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee–(i) Pydi Venkata Ramana, 39-16-36/1, Muralinagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530 007. (ii) Pydi Giridhar Babu, D.No. 38-40-87, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. 2. राजèव/The Revenue –(i) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Visakhapatnam. (ii) Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Visakhapatnam. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam. (ii) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam. 6 4. आयकरआयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 5. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड[फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam