Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2332 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
15-11-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
12-10-2018
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
18-11-2016
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE S MT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 83 /HYD/201 6 (IN ITA NO. 1 674 / HYD/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 ) SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD., TIRUPATI PAN AA DCS1460N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.J.D. SRINIVAS REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNKU SRINIVASULU DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 1 0 - 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 - 1 1 - 2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, .A.M.: TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT SEEKING RECALL OF THE EX - PARTE PARTY ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 1674 /HYD/201 2 VIDE ORDER DATED 27 /0 6 /201 6 . 2. IN THE M.A. THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER: 01. THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS PASSED AN ORDER BY ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL ON 27.06.2016 STATING THAT THE BIFURCATION OF VALUE BETWEEN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND LAND AND BUILDING IS NOT BACKED/SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY DID NOT CHOOSE TO OBTAIN ANY REPORT FROM THE REGISTERED VALUER WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF SUCH PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH ALSO INDICATE THAT THE PRICE NOW SOUGHT TO BE FIXED AT RS.294/ - LAKHS IS ONLY AN IMAGINARY VALUE SO AS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT IT WAS PURCHASED AS AN ASSET AND REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET AS SUCH. 02. THE RESPONDENT COMPANY HAS OBTAINED AN INSPECTION/ ENGINEER'S REPORT FROM A CHARTERED ENGINEER, BY NAME 2 M.A. NO. 83 /HYD/201 6 SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD., TIRUPATHI ER.G.P.JAGADISWAR,B.TECH(MECH)F.I.V. WELL IN TIME AFTER GOT THE PROPERTY / HANDED OVER THE PROPERTY BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IN THE YEAR 2007. 03. THE CHARTERED ENGINEER CLEARLY STATED TH AT THE VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY IS ONLY HAVING SCRAP VALUE IN HIS REPORT DATED 09.06.2008. 04. THE RESPONDENT COMPANY HAS THOUGHT THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS OBTAINED ONLY FOR INTERNAL PURPOSE AND HENCE, NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH. 05. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH IN THIS CASE THOUGHT THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER IS HAVING EVIDENTIARY VALUE. 3. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO RECALL THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE HONBLE BENCH AND HEAR THE CASE AFRESH BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE RESPONDENT - COMPANY. 4. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT. 5. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NO TICE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER ON 27/06/2016, THE ASSESSEE BRINGS ON RECORD THE CHARTERED ENGINEER CERTIFICATE, WHICH WAS ISSUED FOR INTERNAL PURPOSE. THIS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO ACQUISITION OF PLANT & MACHINERY. AS PER THE AB OVE CERTIFICATE, THE PLANT & MACHINERIES WERE INSTALLED IN 1991 AND IT WAS NOT IN WORKING CONDITION. IT CAN BE TREATED AS SCRAP ONLY. IN OUR VIEW, NO BUSINESSMAN WILL BUY ANYTHING WITHOUT PRIOR INSPECTION. ASSESSEE IS AWARE THAT THESE ARE SCRAP AT THE TI ME OF BIDDING. ASSESSEE BOUGHT THESE ASSETS TOGETHER WITH THE LAND AND BUILDING. IT IS BUSINESS DECISION TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER AND IT CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS CAPITAL TRANSACTION. 5.1 THE BENCH HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION BASED ON THE INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NOW, THE ASSESSEE BRINGS ON RECORD CERTAIN 3 M.A. NO. 83 /HYD/201 6 SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD., TIRUPATHI INFORMATION, WHICH WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER. FURTHER, AS DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS PARA, ASSESSEE IS AWARE THAT THE CONDIT ION OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND STILL DECIDES TO PROCEED WITH THE BUYING DECISION, IT SHOWS THAT IT EXPECTS CERTAIN PORTION OF INVESTMENT AS LOSS. THEREFORE, IT CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY THE BENCH NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE . THEREFORE, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH NOVEMBER , 2018. S D/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 COPY TO: - 1) M/S SUDALAGUNTA HOTELS LTD., NO. 209, HOTEL MAYURA, TP AREA, TIRUPATI 2) DC I T , CIRCLE 2 ( 1 ) , HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) , GUNTUR 4) CIT , TIRUPATHI . 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE
Mehul