Ashwin Joshi, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle -6(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

MA 82/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3606 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

1 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.81/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. PAN AGXPJ6884E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) M.A.NO.82/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD. VS. MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. PAN AGXPJ6884E (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.C. DEVDAS FOR REVENUE : MR. RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DATE OF HEARING : 21. 08 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .11.2015 ORDER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THESE TWO M.AS ARE FILED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.07.2013 IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 AND ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012. 2 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. 2. IN BOTH OF THESE M.AS., THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN PAR A-21 OF ITS ORDER WHEREIN A REFERENCE TO THE DVO HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE MADE BY THE A.O. AND ALSO TO CONSIDE R THE REPORT OF THE DVO ON THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED M.A.NO.223/HYD/2013 IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDERS DAT ED 03.02.2014 HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARE NT FROM RECORD FOR RECTIFICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MA.NO.81/HYD/2 015 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012 AND THE REGISTRY HAD TAKEN AN OBJECTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING COMM ON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER BOTH IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 AND ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012, TWO M.AS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED AND THAT IS HOW M.A.NO.82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 HAS BEEN FILED. SINCE THE SECO ND M.A. IS ALSO AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 IT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED AND DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. AS REGARDS M.A.NO.81/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS : 1. THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE I TAT, HYDERABAD AND THE APPEALS ARE NUMBERED AS 1269/H/2012 AND 1428/H/2012 RESPECTIVELY. 3 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. 2. THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2013. 3. A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS PREFERRED ON 20.09.2013 AND WHICH WAS NUMBERED AS MA NO. 223/H/2013 AND WAS DISPOSED OFF ON 03.02.2014. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS. REJECTED. 4. THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WISHES TO SUBMIT THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1269/H/2012. 5. ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 BEFORE INDEXATION RS.1,600 PER SQ. YARD FOR LAND AGGREGATING TO RS. 38,17,647 AND COST OF THE BUILDING AS ON 01.04.1981 BEFORE INDEXATION OF AT RS.2,01,152 AND THE AGGREGATE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION THEREON AT RS.2,31,89,416 AS ON 01.04.1981 AS DETERMINED BY A REGISTERED VALUER. 6. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELL TO DETERMINE THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. 7. THIS DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS AGAINST THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HC IN THE CASE OF CLT VS. ASHWIN DATLA IN ITTA NO: 111 OF 2012 DATED 26.11.2012 WHILE APPROVING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE A BENCH HYDERABAD DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SRI NARSIMHA RAO (HUF), HYDERABAD (ITA NO: 1240/H/2007 A BENCH HYDERABAD ORDER DATED 26.09.2008, UPHELD THE VALUATION AS ON 01.04.1981 PENNED BY A REGISTERED VALUER RECOGNIZED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AS THERE WAS NO PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTE TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION CELL TO DETERMINE THE 4 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981. THIS DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HC WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BINDING AND THEREFORE THE ORDER CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. 8. BINDING VALUE OF A CO-ORDINATE BENCH: DECISION OF A CO-ORDINATE BENCH. - IN CIT V TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD [265 ITR PAGE 526(KER)] WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT RULED THAT A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISTINGUISHING AN EARLIER DECISION OF A DIFFERENT BENCH, EVEN IF IT WERE WRONG. THE HIGH COURT POINTED OUT TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SUB- INSPECTOR ROOPAL V LT. GOVERNOR, (1 SEC 644) WHERE THE SUPREME COURT EXPRESSED SERIOUS DISSATISFACTION OF ONE BENCH OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DISREGARDING THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANOTHER BENCH POINTING OUT THAT RESPECT FOR THE PRECEDENTS IS 'THE FOUNDATION OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE UNDER OUR SYSTEM 'AND THAT ONLY A LARGER BENCH CAN OVERRULE AN EARLIER DECISION. IT WAS FELT THAT IT IS A MATTER OF JUDICI AL DISCIPLINE EVEN AS BETWEEN BENCHES OF THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURTS AS POINTED OUT IN NUMBER OF CASES, SO THAT THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT FUNCTION WITH DIFFERENT VOICES. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL PROPERT Y AND DISCIPLINE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 295 ITR 466 ON BINDING NATURE OF THE DECISIONS OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH AND ALSO THE JURISDICTIONAL HC ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHVEN DATLA (SUPRA) I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T I N THE APPELLANT'S CASE CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION TO STA TE THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER' S VALUATION AS ON 01.04.1981 IS TO BE UPHELD WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CASE OF THE 5 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. APPELLANT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 10. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS ORDERS AS DEEM FIT. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE M.A., WHILE THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M.A.NO.223/HYD/2013 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED T HE M.A. AND ON THE SAME LINES, THIS M.A. ALSO NEEDS TO BE REJECTED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ELA BORATE SUBMISSIONS ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE M.A.NO.81/HYD/2015 AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION. HE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE DECISI ONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ON WHI CH HE RELIED UPON TO SUBMIT THAT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012 IS ERRONEOUS AND NEEDS RECTIFICATION. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CROSS-APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE WERE DISPOSED O F BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER DAT ED 31.07.2013. ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 WAS THE REVENUES APPEAL WHILE ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012 IS ASSESSEES APP EAL. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE COMMON ISSUE WAS THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, ADOPTION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 6 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. 1981 WAS NECESSARY. IT IS NOTICED THAT AFTER CONSID ERING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 21 OF ITS O RDER DIRECTED THE A.O. TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE DVO AND TO CONSIDER THE REPORT OF THE DVO ON THE COST OF ACQUI SITION AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. WE FIND THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN MA.NO.223/HYD/2013 THOUGH IN THE REVENUES APPEAL 1428/HYD/2012 AND THIS TRIBUNAL AF TER CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US NOW I.E., THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHVEN DATLA IN ITTA.NO.111 OF 2012 DATED 26.11.2012 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SRI NARSIMHA RAO (HUF), HYDERABAD IN ITA.NO.1240/HYD/2007 DATED 26.09.2008, HAS HELD THA T THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEE DS RECTIFICATION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN MA.NO.223/HYD/2013 IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO ONE OF THE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, VIZ. TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.81 BEFORE INDEXATION RS.1600 PER SQ. YARD FOR LAND AGGREGATING TO RS.38,17,647 AND COST OF THE BUILDING AS ON 1.4.81 BEFORE INDEXATION AT RS.2,01,1252 AND THE AGGREGATE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION THEREON AT RS.2,31,89,416 AS ON 1.4.81. THE LEARNED COUNSEL THEN TOOK US THROUGH PARAS 19 AND 20 OF OUR ORDER DATED 31.7.2013, AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE SAID ORDER 7 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE SAID GROUND. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 19 THAT THE REGISTERED VALUER WOULD BE INFLUENCED BY VESTED INTEREST HAVING BEEN CHOSEN BY THE APPELLANT, IS A SUOMOTTO OBSERVATION, AND THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO NOTE THAT ALL REGISTERED VALUERS ARE GRANTED RECOGNITION BY THE CIT/CCIT AND THEY ARE GOVERNED BY STATUTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE SOLITARY CITED DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. V/S. RAMAN KUMAR SURI REPORTED IN 81 DTR 33, WHICH CLINCHES TO THE ISSUE AS TO THE BINDING NATURE OF REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT ON VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MADE REFERENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. V/S. GODAVARI DEVI SARAF REPORTED IN 113 ITR 89, THOUGH THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. HAVING FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT AT PARAGRAPH 18 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RAMAN SURIS CASE (SUPRA) AS APPLICABLE, THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE SAME. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE CITED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (HYDERABAD A BENCH) IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. SRI NARASIMHA RAO(HUF), HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.1240/H/07, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.9.2008, WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 4 TO 19 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY HELD AT PARAGRAPH 14 THAT NO REFERENCE TO THE V.O COULD BE MADE U/S. 55A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, GOVERNING VALUATION OF PROPERTIES FOR CAPITAL GAINS PURPOSES. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THIS BEHALF ON THE DECISION SUPREME COURT IN HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT (295 ITR 466) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NOT FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THIS BEHALF THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARASIMHA RAO (SUPRA) WAS REFERRED TO AND APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN 8 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ASVEN DATLA IN ITTA NO.111 OF 2012 DATED 26.11.2012, WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ION ITS ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI AND DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CITED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. TRAVANCORE TITAANIUM PRODUCTS LTD. (265 ITR 526), IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS ON THE BINDING NATURE OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THUS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED/RECALLED. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 AND THE PRESENT APPLCIATIONOF THE ASSEE IS LIABLE TO EB REJECTED, AS IT IS DEVOID OF MERIT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. FROM THE ELABORATE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ON THOSE LINES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY CRITICIZING CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 AND THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT FOLLOWING CERTAIN OTHER DECISIONS. AN OVERALL READING OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31.7.2013 CLEARLY REFLECTS THE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, INCLUDING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THEM. NO SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WARRANTING 9 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. RECTIFICATION/RECALL, HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. BY THE ELABORATE CONTENTIONS IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, ASSESSEE IS MERELY SEEKING A REVIEW OF OUR ORDER DATED 31.7.2013, BY CRITICIZING THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING OF CERTAIN DECISIONS AND NOT FOLLOWING CERTAIN OTHERS, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, THE SCOPE OF WHICH IS CONFINED TO MERE RECTIFICATION OF OBVIOUS/PATENT MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH MIGHT HAVE CREPT INTO AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MISTAKES SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AS DEVOID OF MERIT. WE DO SO ACCORDINGLY AND REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT NONE OF US I.E., BOTH J.M. AS WELL AS A.M. ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CROSS-APPEALS. THE VERY SAM E MEMBERS WHO HAVE AUTHORED THE ORDER IN ITAS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT IN THE ABOVE M.AS IN MA.NO.223/HYD/2013 AND HAVE DISMISSED IT AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. SINCE THE VERY SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL CONSISTING OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE DECIDED THE APPE ALS, WE CANNOT BUT TAKE THE SAME VIEW. THUS, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECO RD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CONT ENTIONS OF ASSESSEE IN M.A. PARTICULARLY IN PARA-6 ARE NOT CORRECT. PARA-6 OF THE PRESENT M.A. IS AS UNDER : 6. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER REFERRED THE MAT TER TO THE VALUATION CELL TO DETERMINE THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE COST OF ACQUISIT ION OF THE PROPERTY. 10 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. 4.2. THE ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA.NO.1428/HYD/2012 AND ITA.NO.1269/HYD/2012 DATED 31 ST JULY, 2013 IN PARA 21 AND 22 ARE AS UNDER : 21. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE A.O. SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING : 1. THE REGISTERED VALUER REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. REFERENCE TO THE DVO HAS TO BE MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE REPORT OF THE DVO ON THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. 3. INHERENT QUALITY OF THE PROPERTY NAMELY SIZE, LOCATION, ROAD FRONTAGE, CORNER PLOT, IF ANY, ETC. TO BE EXAMINED. 4. ANY COMPARABLE PROPERTY IN THE SAME LOCALITY SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR CONSIDERATION. 22. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. SHALL AFTER EXAMINING THOROUGHLY THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE VALUES GIVEN BY THE DIFFERENT PERSONS NAMELY DVO AND THE REGISTERED VALUER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE DENOVO. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.3. AS CAN BE SEEN THE ITAT HAS NOT DIRECTED A.O. TO ADOPT VALUE OF DVO AS APPREHENDED. VARIOUS OPTIO NS WERE GIVEN TO A.O. TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VAL UE INCLUDING THE DVO VALUE. THEREFORE ALSO, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, M.AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 11 M.A.NO.81 & 82/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1269 & 1428/HYD/2012 MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.11.2015. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. MR. ASHWIN JOSHI, 6 - 3 - 347, HATA, DWARAKAPURI COLONY, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - IV, HYDERABAD. 4 . CIT - III, HYDERABAD 5 . D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6 . GUARD FILE