TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an appeal preferred by one of the parties even though it might amount to granting of relief to a party, who did not prefer any appeal - The Tribunal is not supposed to pass an anomalous order - Neither can it create a confusing state and permit confusion to continue, nor can it pass an incongruous order. It has to decide the case irrespective of the fact as to whether it would amount to granting relief to the other party who did not prefer the appeal - Following CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1992 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] - Tribunal is having no such power to make a review. There was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal much less any mistake apparent on record - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2168/Mds./2012 , M.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him, directions were required, to ensure that the Assessing Officer retained the relief already given under Section 54EC of the Act. 4. Per contra, Shri Guru Bashyam, appearing for the Revenue, submitted that there was no error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. In any case, according to him, the grievance raised in the Miscellaneous Petition, if allowed, would result in a review of the order of the Tribunal for which it was having no power. 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. The issue adjudicated by this Tribunal was with regard to an addition made for long term capital gain. Contention of the assessee was that the consideration received on sale of asset stood invested in a specific ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified in the conveyance deed, for the purpose of giving effect to the exemption under section 54EC of the Act. However, assessee here has endeavored to make an artificial split of a single transaction. The sale of 7.98 acres of land was effected through a single document and the sale consideration mentioned shown was Rs. 79 lakhs. In our opinion an artificial split of a single transaction for claiming a better benefit than what is lawfully available cannot be accepted or encouraged. The sale executed through a single conveyance deed can be considered only as one single transaction, not amenable to any such split. It was not a case of two separate transactions. Assessee had simply taken out 0.02 acres from 7.98 acres of land, and consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees." 13. Where a transaction calls for a computation specified under clause(b) above, then it is necessary to find out the quantum of capital gains that could be claimed as exempt. For working out such capital gains, section 50C of the Act, which is mandatory in nature cannot be ignored. Said Sec.50C requires substitution of the consideration mentioned in the deed with the value fixed by Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of stamp duty. In the given case, assessee had disputed the valuation and the matter was referred by Assessing Officer to DVO as provided under section 50C(2) of the Act. Once the DVO had given the report, Assessing Officer was bound to apply sub-clause (3) of Sec.50C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument that assessee's case fell under clause (b) of Section 54EC(1) and not clause (a). This has been specifically mentioned by the Tribunal at para 9 of its order. 7. When an appeal is preferred before the Tribunal by any of the parties, the whole appeal is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is supposed to pass appropriate order as it may deem fit in the appeal preferred by any of the parties. It is immaterial whether such order will benefit one or the other of the parties in the process it might be in favour of a party, who had not preferred the appeal but is a respondent therein, particularly, when the principle of law is laid down and on such legal principle the appellant may not entitled to any relief. There is nothing to prevent the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efer the appeal. 8. The above position directly evolve out of the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCAP Ltd. v. CIT 270 ITR 248, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Controller of Estate Duty v. Smt. K. Narasamma 125 ITR 196 and that of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service 199 ITR 1. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee here is seeking review of the order of the Tribunal and this Tribunal is having no such power to make a review. There was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal much less any mistake apparent on record. We thus do not find any merit in this Miscellaneous Petition moved by assessee. 9. In the result, Miscellaneous Petition filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
