DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad V. Sabitha Anand Hospital, Hyderabad

MA 68/Hyd/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad as the appellant and Sabitha Anand Hospital as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application to correct typographical errors in a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessment years applicable to the case. The errors pertained to the years mentioned for the spread of construction costs over different financial years. Both parties acknowledged the typographical errors, and the Tribunal rectified the errors as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129922 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

MA No 68 of 2023 Sabitha Anand Hospital Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member M.A. No.68/Hyd/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.597/Hyd/2022) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. CIT Central Circle 3(3) Hyderabad Vs. Sabitha Anand Hospital Hyderabad PAN:ABWFS9326E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR Assessee by : Advocate A.V. Raghuram Date of hearing: 22/09/2023 Date of pronouncement: 10/10/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President The Revenue through this Miscellaneous Application has requested the Tribunal to rectify certain typographical errors that have crept into the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.597/Hyd/2022. 2. The learned DR referring to the contents of the M.A drew the attention of the Bench to the same which reads as under: MA No 68 of 2023 Sabitha Anand Hospital Page 2 of 4 3. She accordingly submitted that since certain typographical errors have crept into the order of the Tribunal the MA No 68 of 2023 Sabitha Anand Hospital Page 3 of 4 same is required to be rectified as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the I.T. Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, fairly conceded that there are certain typographical errors in the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival arguments and perused the record and find that at Para 14 of the order of the Tribunal in the last line instead of “A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2017-18”, the same has been typed as “August 2010-11 to A.Y 2017-18”. Similarly at Para 15.2.of the order it has been mentioned that the difference so arrived at shall be spread over “A.Y 2009-10 to A.Y 2017-18” instead of “A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2017-18”. We therefore, rectify the mistakes at Para 14 and Para 15.2 and direct that Para 14 and Para 15.2 of the order is to be read as under: “14 Further, a perusal of the receipt showing payment for building permission fee, copy of which is placed at Page 12-13 of the Paper Book shows that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.1,76,785/- on 5.3.2009 and Rs.43,020/- on 5.3.2009 towards payment for building permission fee. A perusal of page No.15 to 20 of the paper book shows that the permission order given by the GHMC for construction of the Nursing Home on 30.5.2009. A perusal of the property tax receipts copies of which are placed at page 23 to 28 of the Paper Book shows that the assessee has started paying the property tax from 1.10.2012. Under these circumstances, we find merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the construction of the building started in financial year 2009-10 (May-2009) and completed in financial year 2016-17(August,2016) and therefore, the difference between the cost of construction as per the DVO and the Valuer’s report should be spread over between financial year 2009-10 to financial year 2016-17 i.e. A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2017-18 proportionately. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to spread over the difference between MA No 68 of 2023 Sabitha Anand Hospital Page 4 of 4 the cost of construction arrived at by the DVO and the cost of construction arrived at after considering our observations in the subsequent paragraphs over the period from “A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2017-18”. 15.2 The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the cost of construction after reducing the discount for purchase of material at 20%, allowing self- supervision charges at 12.5% and whatever value is arrived by the Assessing Officer, the same shall be deducted from the value arrived at by the DVO and the difference so arrived at shall be spread over “A.Y 2010- 11 to A.Y 2017-18” and the Assessing Officer shall calculate the income of the assessee on the basis of such spread over.” 5.1 The remaining part of the order shall be same as it is. 6. In the result, M.A filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (R.K. PANDA) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 10 th October, 2023. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Dy.CIT, Central Circle 3(3) Aayakar Bhavan, Opp: LB Stadium, Hyderabad 500004 2 M/s. Sabitha Anand Hospital 4-2-879/9/1 Pratap Giri Bagh, Vikarabad, Hyderabad 501101 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order