Mohd. Zaheeruddin Ahmed, Tandur, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vikarabad

MA 67/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7068 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE S HRI P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 6 7/HYD/2018 (IN ITA NO. 229 HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 07 - 08 ) MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED, TANDUR. PAN ABYPA0210B VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, VIKARABAD . (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SYED JAMEELUDDIN REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNKU SRINIVASULU DATE OF HEARING : 03 - 0 8 - 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 0 8 - 2018 O R D E R PER S . RIFAUR RAHMAN , A .M. : TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT HAVE CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28 / 02 /2017 IN ITA NO. 229 / /HYD/2017. 2. IN THE M.A. THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER: 5. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., IN PARAGRAPH 8 .3, AT PAGE - 5 OF THE ORDER, AS UNDER: - 'WITH REGARD TO OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO S . 5 ,6 &7 ARE NOT ARGUED BEFORE US AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C BECOME APPLICABLE SINCE A SSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ISSUE FOR REFERRING TO VALUATION CELL FOR EVALUATION OF MARKET VALUE OR MADE ANY SUBMISSION FOR SELLING AT A LOWER PRICE THAN SRO VALUE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH C.I.T(A ) S ORDER.' 2 M.A. NO. 6 7 /HYD/2018 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED, TANDUR IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT NEVER STATED, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED NOR GAVE IN WRITING TO THAT EFFECT, AS THE SAID GROUNDS ARE BASED ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE VERY CRUCIAL IN DECIDING THE ISSUE, IF THE GROUND NOS.2,3 & 4 BASED ON LAW ARE NOT ALLOWED. FURTHER, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME ENCLOSED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS CLEARLY STA TED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS ADMITTED FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT S.NO.134, AT SAIPUR, TANDUR, R.R.DISTRICT, IN AN AREA ADMEASURING 855.5 SQ. YARDS, AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ENCLOSED, WERE RS.8, 5 5, 500 / - . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ENCLOSED THE CERTIFICATE OF MARKET VALUE AS ON 01 - 07 - 2005, AS HE HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 09 - 07 - 200S (PAGE 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01 - 07 - 2005 WAS RS.500/PER SQUARE YARD, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PLOT OF LAND AS PE R THE AGREEMENT DT. 09 - 07 - 2005 @ RS.1,000/ - PER SQUARE YARD I .E. DOUBLE THE VALUE FIXED BY THE SRO, ON 01 - 07 - 2005. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,55,500/ - AS ADVANCE ON 09 - 07 - 2005 AND THE BALANCE OF R. 7,00,000/ - WAS RECEIVED IN INSTALLMENTS AS PER THE AGREEMENT (PAGES 85 TO 88 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALREADY SUBMITTED). AS THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE UNDER SECTION 50C, WHICH WAS PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT, ON WHICH DATE AN ADVANCE OF RS.1, 55,000/ - WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,55,500/IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THUS, BY EXECUTING THE SALE DEED ON 02 - 12 - 2006, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY .COMPLETED THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION IM POSED UPON HIM BY VIRTUE OF THE SALE AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION FOR SELLING AT A LOWER RATE IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. HENCE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. TO RECTIFY THIS MISTAKE WHICH I S APPARENT FROM RECORD. 3. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE FACTUAL GROUND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES, WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD MAY BE C ONSIDERED BY RECALLING THE SAID ORDER. 3 M.A. NO. 6 7 /HYD/2018 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED, TANDUR 4. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND SUPPORTED THE ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 5. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I N OUR VIEW, GROUND NOS. 5, 6 & 7 RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS BY RECALLING THE ABOVE ORDER . THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY RECALLED AND IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10/ 09/2018. AS THIS DATE WAS NOTED BY BOTH THE COUNSELS, NO NOTICE OF HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, M.A. FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST , 2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (S . RIFAUR RAHMAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 10 TH AUGUST , 2018. KV COPY TO: - 1) SHRI MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED, C/O SYED JAMEELUDDIN, INCOME - TAX CONSULTANT, 16 - 7 - 302, ERRAM COTTAGE, HYDERABAD 500 024 2) I TO, WARD 1, VIKARABAD 3) CIT(A) 2, HYD. 4) PR. CIT 2, HYD. 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE