ACIT, CHENNAI V. V.G.P. Housing (P) Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 68/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0509 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P.NOS. 61 TO 63/MDS/2013 ( IN ITA NOS.522, 523 & 525/MDS/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S. V .G.P. & CO., INCOME-TAX (OSD), 6, VGP SQUARE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), D.R.KOIL STREET, SAIDAPET, 46, N.H. ROAD, CHENNAI-15. CHENNAI-600 034. PAN: AAAFV3395D (APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) & M.P.NOS. 64 TO 68/MDS/2013 ( ITA NOS.642 TO 646/MDS/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2008-09) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S. VGP HOUSING (P) LTD. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(3), 6, VG P SQUARE CHENNAI. D.R.KOIL STREET, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-15. PAN: AAACY2568B (APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. DAS GUPTA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH JUNE, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7 TH JUNE, 2013 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN ITA NOS. 522 TO 526/MDS/2012 AND 641 TO 647/MDS/2012 DA TED 21 ST DECEMBER, 2012 STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSE D M.P. NOS.61 TO 63/MDS/2013 & 64 TO 68/MDS/2013 2 ORDER DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT T HE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMENT I NCURRED IN CASH TO 10% AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT IN SOME OF THE YEARS THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MOR E THAN THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INCOME ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO BE LESS THAN THE INCOME ASS ESSED ORIGINALLY. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT S THAT IF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FOLLOWED, THE INC OME ASSESSED WOULD BE LESS THAN THE INCOME ORIGINALLY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL APPEARS TO BE A MISTAKE, THEREFORE SEEKS FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE O RDER DATED 21.12.2012 TO THAT EXTENT. 3. IN REPLY, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS T HAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTR ICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHER EVER THE M.P. NOS.61 TO 63/MDS/2013 & 64 TO 68/MDS/2013 3 EXPENSES CAME TO BE DISALLOWED ARE LESS THAN THE OF FER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIB UNAL DATED 21.12.2012. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE END OF PARA 11 OF THE ORDER DATED 21 ST DECEMBER, 2012 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER:- 11. XXXX TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMENT INCURRED IN CASH TO 10% AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE INCLUDING THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ABOVE SAID PORTION OF THE ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE MODIFIED AND SHALL BE RE AD AS UNDER :- 11. XXXX TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND M.P. NOS.61 TO 63/MDS/2013 & 64 TO 68/MDS/2013 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMENT INCURRED IN CASH TO 10% AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE INCLUDING THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN ANY OF THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN CASE THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN 10% OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT 10% OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH. WE DISPOSE OFF ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WI TH THE ABOVE MODIFICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS OF TH E REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) (CHALLA NA GENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 7 TH JUNE, 2013. SOMU M.P. NOS.61 TO 63/MDS/2013 & 64 TO 68/MDS/2013 5 COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CI T(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.