ITO, The Nilgiris V. Drumella Associates, The Nilgiris

MA 74/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6189 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: G SARANGAN

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. NO.74/CHNY/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.81/MDS/2016) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, NO.1, CHRISTO BUILDING, STATE BANK ROAD, OOTACAMUND, THE NILGIRIS. PAN : AAIFD 0258 R V. M/S DRUMELLA ASSOCIATES, SPRINGFIELD POST, COONOOR, THE NILGIRIS. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. SARANGAN, SR. ADVOCATE 0 . 1# / DATE OF HEARING : 09.03.2018 2!' . 1# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.03.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 15.09.2016. 2 M.P. NO.74/CHNY/17 2. MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE FIRM AND N O PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE PARTNERS SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO THE PAYMENT S BEING CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR CURRENT ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE PAYMENT FOR THE LAND CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE TO THE PARTNERS, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE IS NOT CORRECT, HENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HEARD SHRI G. SARANGAN, THE LD. SR. COUNSEL A LSO. THIS TRIBUNAL FACTUALLY FOUND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION AND NO PAYMENT WAS MADE, TH EREFORE, SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE AT A LL. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN GURENSEY ESTATES IN I.T.A. NO.7 19/MDS/2016 DATED 17.06.2016. THE REVENUE IS NOT DISPUTING THI S FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN GURENSEY ESTATES (SUPRA). IT IS NOT KN OWN WHY THE REVENUE IS FINDING AN ERROR ONLY IN THIS ORDER. TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION AND THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2)(A) OF THE 3 M.P. NO.74/CHNY/17 ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERRO R MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 15.09.2016. THEREFORE , THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. 4. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 15 TH MARCH, 2018. KRI. . )15% 6%'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 71 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 71 /CIT 5. %8 )1 /DR 6. 9& : /GF.