Coromandel Oils Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 73/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3436 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NOS.73, 74 & 75/MDS/2015 (IN ITA NOS.1937, 1939 & 1941/MDS/2013) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S COROMANDEL OILS PVT. LTD., DOSHI TOWERS, 9 TH FLOOR, 156, PH ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 010. PAN : AAACC 8855 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. ( PETITIONER ) ( RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SH. PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT ) * +$ / DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2015 ,!' * +$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS CONTENDING THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.06.02015. 2. SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONER, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED T HE CONTENTION OF 2 M.P. NOS.73 TO 75/MDS/15 THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAN D IN QUESTION WAS AT ` 10.50 CRORES AS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DAT ED 01.04.2008. HOWEVER, WHILE CONSIDERING THE DEPARTM ENT APPEALS, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE RATIO DETERMINED BY TH E CIT(APPEALS) AT 40% IN THE SHARE OF CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS ALSO REASO NABLE AND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. RE PRESENTATIVE, WHEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT ` 10.50 CRORES WAS ACCEPTED, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DETERMINATION OF ANY SHARE IN THE CONSTRUCTED AREA WHETHER AT 40% OR 45%, AS THE CASE MAY BE. ONCE TH IS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEM ENT DATED 01.04.2008 WAS ` 10.50 CRORES, THEN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE IN THE CONSTRUCT ED AREA WOULD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD . REPRESENTATIVE, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO THAT EXTENT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. PATHLAVATH PEERYA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TR IBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN WHICH SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS REDUCED TO 40% AS AGAINST THE RATIO DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 45 %. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR. 3 M.P. NOS.73 TO 75/MDS/15 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS RIGHTL Y SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED AT ` 10.50 CRORES AS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2008, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF FURTHER ESTIMATION OF SHARE IN THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. THERE FORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONFIRMING THE OR DER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN WHICH THE SHARE IN CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS REDUCED TO 40% IS AN ERROR. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVE, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW O F THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL ALLOWING THE COST OF THE LAND AT ` 10.50 CRORES AS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2008. ONCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED AT ` 10.50 CRORES, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ESTIMATION OF SHARE IN THE CONSTRUCTED AREA EITHER AT 40% OR 45%, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE OR DER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, IN EXERC ISE OF POWER OF THIS TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 26.06.2015 IS RECTIFIE D AS UNDER:- PARAS 11, 12 & 13 AT PAGES 13 AND 14 OF THE TRIBU NAL ORDER DATED 26.06.2015 ARE HEREBY DELETED. INSTEAD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED AS PARAS 11 AND 12. 4 M.P. NOS.73 TO 75/MDS/15 11. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS.1937, 1939 & 1941/MDS/2013, THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. IS THAT THE SHARING RATI O OF THE DEVELOPED PROJECT WAS REDUCED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) TO 40% AS AGAINST 45% DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH, DETERMINING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT ` 10.50 CRORES AS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2008, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DETERMINING THE SHARE IN THE CONSTRUCTED AREA MAY NOT BE NECESSARY. IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED AT ` 10.50 CRORES, THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR ESTIMATING THE SHARE OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CONSTRUCTED AREA. ACCORDINGLY, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 5 M.P. NOS.73 TO 75/MDS/15 THE EXISTING PARAS 14,15,16 & 17 SHALL BE RE-NUMB ERED AS PARAS 13, 14, 15 & 16. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I S RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT IONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !' ) ( ... ) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED, THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2015. KRI. * 0+12 32'+ /COPY TO: 1. 45 /APPELLANT 2. 0645 /RESPONDENT 3. ) 7+ () /CIT(A) 4. ) 7+ /CIT 5. 28 0+ /DR 6. 9& : /GF.