आयकर अपीलीय ’ बी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय (ी महावीर िसंह, उपा/0 एवं माननीय (ी मनोज कु मार अ5वाल ,लेखा सद8 के सम0। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.A. Nos.69, 70, 71, 72 & 73/Chny/2023 (Arising out of WTA Nos.21, 22, 23, 24 & 25/Chny/2010) ( िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Shri A. Vijaya Kant, No.53, 54, Kannammal Street, Kannabiran Colony, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093. बनाम / Vs . ACIT Central Circle-I(2), Chennai. थायीलेखासं. /जीआइआरसं. /PAN /G IR N o. AB RP V - 6 4 7 9 - N (अ पीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Saravanan (Advocate) -Ld. AR थ की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 12-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): 1. By way of these miscellaneous applications, the assessee seeks certain modifications in Tribunal orders passed in captioned appeals on 05-08-2022. In the petition, it has been submitted that the bench, vide para 4.7 of the order, directed Ld. AO to adopt appreciation rate of 20% on year-on-year basis and re-compute the value of the said land situated 2 at Natesan Nagar. The Ld. AR submitted that the property at Natesan Nagar was not vacant land but it was land occupied by building which is evident from the annexure with the Income Tax returns as filed by the assessee. Further, the said property was purchased with building. Considering this fact, the land would not be covered under Wealth Tax Act. The Ld. AR accordingly seek modification of the order. The same has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR on the ground that bench has rendered factual finding. 2. We concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR that the bench has rendered factual finding in para 4.6 of the order as under: 4.6 We also find that the plea that the asset is not a land but building is also without any cogent evidence on record. Except for mere submission, there is nothing on record which would suggest that the assessee constructed building on this land. This plea was raised for the first time during appellate proceedings. However, the submissions were not supported by any material evidence. No plausible material has been produced before us also to substantiate this fact. Therefore, this plea of the assessee has also been rightly rejected by Ld. CIT(A). In view of the same, we do not find any mistake apparent from the record. The assessee is merely seeking review of the order which is impermissible. 3. All the applications stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 th May, 2023. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा/0 /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखासद8 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेFई/ Chennai; िदनांक/ Dated : 12-05-2023 EDN/- आदेशकीTितिलिपअ5ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयुI/ CIT4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडNफाईल/GF