Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1445 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (11) TMI 1445 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Computation of long term capital gains - adoption of the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 - rectification of mistake - Held that:- The common issue was the computation of long term capital gains and for that purpose, adoption of the fair market value as on 1st April, 1981 was necessary. It is noticed that after considering rival contentions, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to refer the valuation to the DVO and to consider the report of the DVO on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.

As can be seen the ITAT has not directed A.O. to adopt value of DVO as apprehended. Various options were given to A.O. to determine the fair market value including the DVO value. Therefore also, we are of the opinion that there is no mistake which require rectification. - M.A. No. 81, 82 /Hyd/2015, ITA. No. 1269/Hyd/2012, ITA. No. 1428/Hyd/2012 - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Mr. K. C. Devda .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it was brought to our notice 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 dated 03.02.2014 holding that there was no mistake apparent from record for rectification. It was submitted that subsequently, the assessee has filed MA.No.81/Hyd/2015 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 common and consolidated order bot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before the I TAT, Hyderabad and the Appeals are numbered as 1269/H/2012 and 1428/H/2012 respectively. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of judicial property 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 coordinate bench and also the Jurisdictional HC order in the case of CIT vs. Ashven Datla (Supra) it is submitted that the order passed by the I.T.A.T in the Appellant's case calls for rectification to state that the valuation report of the Registered Valuer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the M.A. and on the same lines, this M.A. also needs to be rejected. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made elaborate 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 decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench on which he relied upon to submit that the order of this Tribunal in ITA.No.1269/Hyd/2012 is erroneous and needs rectification. 4. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It is noticed that after considering rival contentions, the Tribunal at para 21 of its order directed the A.O. to refer the valuation to the DVO and to consider the report of the DVO on the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 for computation of capital gains. We find that the very same issue has been raised by the assessee in MA.No.223/Hyd/2013 though in the Revenue s appeal 1428/Hyd/2012 and this Tribunal after considering the decisions cited by the assessee before us now i.e., the decision of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pplicant-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 ₹ 1600 per sq. yard for land aggregating to ₹ 38,17,647 and cost of the building as on 1.4.81 before indexation at ₹ 2,01,1252 and the aggregate indexed cost of acquisition thereon at ₹ 2,31,89,416 as on 1.4.8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 valuer s report on valuation as on 1.4.1981. He further submitted that the Tribunal made referen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e-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 clea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version