V.V.Balachandran, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

MA 94/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3431 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 54

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.94/MDS/2015 (IN I.T.A. NO.317/MDS/2012) & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI V.V. BALACHANDRAN, 45-50, 2/4, SARADA KRIPA APARTMENTS, RAJU NAIDU ROAD, SIVANANDA COLONY, COIMBATORE 641 012. PAN : AFLPB 6604 H V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD I(2), COIMBATORE. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2015 2!' . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.09.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PET ITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 20.11.2012. 2 M.P. NO.94/MDS/15 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE PETITI ONER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT HE RECEIVE D A SUM OF ` 13 LAKHS TOWARDS HIS SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF TH E FAMILY PROPERTY IN MAY, 2006 AND PURCHASED A PROPERTY SINGANALLUR I N JANUARY, 2007 FOR ` 9.85 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL THAT A SUM OF ` 5.25 LAKHS WAS SPENT ON REPAIRS AND RENOVATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL THAT THE REPAIRS AND RENOVATION WORK WAS HANDED OVER TO A CONTRACTOR WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT ` 5.25 LAKHS FOR REPAIRS AND RENOVATION. THIS TRIBUNAL WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REPAIRS AND RENOVATION WAS CARRIED OUT THROUGH A CONTRACTOR, FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WA S NOT PROVED WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING T O THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS AND RENOVATION THROUGH A CONTRACTOR, IT IS NOT POSS IBLE TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORK EXCEPT A CERTIFICATE FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE CONTRACTOR. ALTERNATIVELY , THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE MATTER MA Y BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSID ER THE CONFIRMATION 3 M.P. NO.94/MDS/15 GIVEN BY THE CONTRACTOR WHO CARRIED OUT THE REPAIRS AND RENOVATION. THIS TRIBUNAL, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. THEREFORE, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER REPRODUCING THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, INCLUD ING THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE CLAI M OF REPAIRS AND RENOVATION WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PRODUCING NECES SARY EVIDENCE BY WAY OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS. REFERRING TO THE ORD ER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, MORE PARTICULARLY PAGE 7, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT AFTER REFERRING TO THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REMITT ING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE A CT'). THE CASE OF 4 M.P. NO.94/MDS/15 THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IN COME-TAX ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 5.25 LAKHS FOR REPAIRS AND RENOVATION. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAME WAS INCURRED THROU GH A CONTRACTOR. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTEN DED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, FOUND THAT IT WAS IMPERATIVE UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE COGENT EVIDENCE BY WAY OF B ILLS AND VOUCHERS AND OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM ON REPAIRS AND RENOVATION. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY SUCH CLAIM, THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THIS TRIBUNAL SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT SUCH A CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCE PTED AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATE D 20.11.2012. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT ENABLES THE TRIBUNAL TO R ECTIFY AN ERROR, 5 M.P. NO.94/MDS/15 WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. IN TH E GUISE OF RECTIFICATION OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THIS TRIBUN AL CANNOT REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE CANNOT PRODUCE ANY BILLS AND VOUCHERS SINCE THE WORK WAS C ARRIED OUT THROUGH A CONTRACTOR AND THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED AT THIS STAGE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION SINCE THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IN THE ORD ER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 20.11.2012. THEREFORE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AT ALL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. KRI. 6 M.P. NO.94/MDS/15 . )156 76'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT 5. 69 )1 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.