Smt. M. Saraswathi, R.R.Dist V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle 2, Hyderabad

MA 74/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0537 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: D RANGA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIA L MEMBER M.A. NO. IN ITA/CO NO. ASSESS MENT YEAR APPLICANT RESPONDENT 70/HYD/2013 1099/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT. M.POCHAMMA, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE R.R. DISTRICT (PAN BCGPM 2668 K) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 71/HYD/2013 1100/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT. M. KAUSALYA, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN APSPM 3327 D) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 72/HYD/2013 1101/HYD/2010 2007-08 SHRI M.SURENDHAR, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN APSPM 3344 N ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 73/HYD/2013 1102/HYD/2010 2007-08 SHRI M.B.JANARDHAN, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN BCGPM 2666 H ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 74/HYD/2013 1103/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT. M.SARASWATHI, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN BCGPM 2409 A ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 75/HYD/2013 1104/HYD/2010 2007-08 SHRI M.B.SUDARSHAN JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN ADFPM 7337 D) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 76/HYD/2013 1105/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT. M.NARSAMMA, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN BCGPM 3080 H ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD M.A. NOS.70 TO 80/HYD/2013 (IN NO.ITA NO.1099 TO 1110/ HYD/2011 & COS THEREIN) SMT. M.POCHAMMA AND ORS, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD 2 77 /HYD/201 3 1106/HYD/2010 2007 - 08 SHRI B.N.CHANDRA MOHAN JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN AKOPB 1415 A ) DY. COMMI - SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 78/HYD/2013 1107/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT. M.NAVANEETHA, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN BCGPM 2665 E ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 79/HYD/2013 1108/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT M.SWAROOPA, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN BCGPM 2410 M ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD 80/HYD/2013 1109/HYD/2010 2007-08 SMT. M.PUSHPAMMA, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (PAN APSPM 5223 L ) DY. COMMI- SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD APPLICANTS BY : SHRI D.RANGA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.H.NAIK DR DATE OF HEARING 24.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.06.2013 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THESE APPLICATIONS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEES HAVE PRAYED FOR RECTI FICATION/RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 20.7.2012 ON THE APPEA LS OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NOS .1099 TO 1109/HYD/2010 AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE THEREIN, BEING C.O. NO. 76 TO 86/HYD/1012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD H AVE CREPT INTO THE SAME. M.A. NOS.70 TO 80/HYD/2013 (IN NO.ITA NO.1099 TO 1110/ HYD/2011 & COS THEREIN) SMT. M.POCHAMMA AND ORS, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD 3 2. REITERATING THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT A PPLICATION, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES , SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CLEAR CUT PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.SANJITHA BE GUM AND THE FACTS LAID DOWN IN THIS JUDGMENT ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE MENTIONE D IN OUR CASE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE TRIBUNAL BEING A JUDICIAL AUTHORITY HAS TO EXPRESS ITS FINDING ABO UT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CITED JUDGMENT TO THE CASE ON HAND. IT IS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABEB I (204 ITR 631) RELIED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE DISTINCT FROM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES IN THESE CASES. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NATURE O F THE LAND IS DECIDING FACTOR FOR TAXATION AND THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER I S VITAL IN THESE PETITIONS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE IS A MANIFEST ERROR, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY CLEAR AND SELF EVIDENT, THE TRIBUNAL IS EXPECTED TO RECALL ITS ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY ACCORD INGLY BE MODIFIED KEEPING IN VIEW THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. VED PRAKASH (209 ITR 448). 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE CONTRARY, OPPOSING THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, STR ONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.7.2012 SUBMITTED THA T THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THROUGH ITS ELABORATE ARGUMENTS, IS ONLY A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.7.2012, BY RE-ARGUING ITS CAS E. SINCE SUCH A REVIEW IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSES SEE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 20.7.2012, IN THE LIGH T OF THE DETAILED M.A. NOS.70 TO 80/HYD/2013 (IN NO.ITA NO.1099 TO 1110/ HYD/2011 & COS THEREIN) SMT. M.POCHAMMA AND ORS, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD 4 AVERMENTS MADE ON VARIOUS ASPECTS BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE PRESENT APPLICATION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES BY THE PRE SENT APPLICATIONS ARE MERELY CRITICIZING AND DISPUTING THE FINDINGS OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN RELATION TO THE NATURE OF LAND. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS IS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-MENTIONING O F CERTAIN CITATIONS RELIED UPON AND ALSO CERTAIN CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE L EARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. A CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CLEARLY REVEALS THAT ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE IT HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AND FIN DINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BASED ON THE MATERIAL APPARENT FROM RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MATERIAL OMISSION OR MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RECORDING THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEES BEFORE IT. IT IS NEITHER EXPECTED NOR PRACTICABLE TO EXP ECT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO RECORD ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES VERBAT IM IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND IT WOULD BE SUFFICE AND MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF TOTALITY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER REFLECTS THE CONSIDERATION OF A LL THE CONTENTIONS URGED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE IT. BY THE CONTENTIONS URGED IN THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE-APPLICANTS ARE MERELY DISPUTING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SEEKING A REVIEW OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT TH E ASSESSEES HAVE PREFERRED SIMILAR APPLICATIONS EARLIER, SEEKING REC TIFICATION/RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.7.2012, AND THE SAM E HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF VA RIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11.1.2013 IN MA NOS. 203 TO 213/HYD/2012. THE EARLIER APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.25 4(2), HAVING BEEN REJECTED ALREADY, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO MOVE ONC E AGAIN APPLICATIONS UNDER S.254(2) FOR THE VERY SAME RELIEF OF REVIEW O F OUR DECISION, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION/RECALL OF OUR ORDER. BY PREF ERRING THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS FOR RECTIFICATION AGAIN, THE ASSESSEES ARE SEEKING NOT ONLY A M.A. NOS.70 TO 80/HYD/2013 (IN NO.ITA NO.1099 TO 1110/ HYD/2011 & COS THEREIN) SMT. M.POCHAMMA AND ORS, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD 5 REVIEW OF OUR DECISION ON THE APPEALS, IN OUR ORDER DATED 20.7.2012, BUT ALSO OUR ORDER DATED 11.1.2013 ON THE EARLIER MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF PREFERRING MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS REITERATING THE VERY SAME CONTENTIONS, FOR A SECOND TIME, AFTER THE EARLIER APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, CANNOT BE APPROVED , AND SUCH SUBSEQUENTLY FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS CANNO T BE ENTERTAINED. WE ARE SUPPORTED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISION OF ALL AHABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. POONAM KUMARI V/S. ITO (59 ITD 106). FOR THIS REASONS ALSO, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S OF THE ASSESSEES CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED, AND AS SUCH, THEY ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FI ND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES, WHICH ARE AC CORDINGLY REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10.06.2013 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- 10 TH JUNE, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) SMT. M.POCHAMMA, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEED IMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (2) SMT. M. KAUSALYA, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEE DIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (3) SHRI M.SURENDHAR, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEE DIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (4) SHRI M.B.JANARDHAN, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES,J EEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT M.A. NOS.70 TO 80/HYD/2013 (IN NO.ITA NO.1099 TO 1110/ HYD/2011 & COS THEREIN) SMT. M.POCHAMMA AND ORS, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, HYDERABAD 6 (5) SMT. M.SARASWATHI, D.NO.10 - 3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (6) SHRI M.B.SUDARSHAN, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (7) SMT. M.NARSAMMA, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEE DIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (8) SHRI B.N.CHANDRA MOHAN, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATE S, JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (9) SMT. M.NAVANEETHA, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, J EEDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (10 SMT M.SWAROOPA, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JEED IMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (11) SMT. M.PUSHPAMMA, D.NO.10-3, MEENAKSHI ESTATES, JE EDIMETLA VILLAGE, R.R. DISTRICT (12) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, H YDERABAD (13) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL ), HYDERABAD (14) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) I, HYDERABAD (15) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S