Dr. V.Suryanarayana Reddy HUF,, Karimnagar Dist. v. ACIT, Karimnagar Circle,, Karimnagar Dist.

ITA 89/HYD/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8922514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABHV4848Q
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 89/HYD/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Dr. V.Suryanarayana Reddy HUF,, Karimnagar Dist.
Respondent ACIT, Karimnagar Circle,, Karimnagar Dist.
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 04-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 14-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 14-09-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 30-01-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF) KARIMNAGAR. PAN AABHV4848Q VS. ACIT KARIMNAGAR CIRCLE KARIMNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.79/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ACIT KARIMNAGAR CIRCLE KARIMNAGAR. VS. DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF) KARIMNAGAR. PAN AABHV4848Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN V.P. THESE CROSS-APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-III HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAIN S TO THE A.Y. 2008-2009. THE ONLY GROUND URGED BY THE ASSESSEE REA DS AS UNDER : THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING ADDITI ON OF 2 ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.79/HYD/2015 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF) KARIMNAGAR. RS.63 21 526 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F. 2. BY WAY OF CROSS-OBJECTION THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ALLOWIN G DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT BY HUF. THERE ARE OTHER TWO CON NECTED GROUNDS WHICH NEED NOT BE ELABORATED HERE FOR THE REA SONS GIVEN BELOW. 3. THE ASSESSEE-HUF DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1 81 110 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A HOU SE PLOT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE GR OUND THAT IT HAD INVESTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN ACQUIRIN G A HOUSE AND ITS ADJACENT LAND. THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIR ED IN THE NAME OF THE KARTHA AND HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON PLOT PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE KARTHA IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND AC CORDINGLY COMPUTED THE ALLOWABLE EXEMPTION. AN APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMING EXEMPTION ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF IN VESTMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THUS THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXEMPTION ON THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE KARTHA OF THE HUF PRESUMABLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASE D IS TREATED AS HUF PROPERTY AND THIS ASPECT WAS NOT QUESTION ED BY 3 ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.79/HYD/2015 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF) KARIMNAGAR. THE REVENUE UNDER THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT OR BY COR RECTING THE ERROR IF ANY UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED ON 31.12.2010 - EITHER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT - THE SAID ISSUE HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. EVEN IN T HE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT INVOKED HIS POWER S OF ENHANCEMENT AND MERELY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME O F KARTHAS WIFE. THUS FROM ANY ANGLE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILIT Y OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION VIS--VIS THE PURCHASE MADE BY DR. V. SURY ANARAYANA REDDY HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. 5. BE THAT AS IT MAY AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE A PETITION WAS FILED SEEKING PERMISSION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ITS APPEAL AND THE REVENUE COULD NOT HAV E RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD AND IN FACT THERE BEING N O OPPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE THE ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO WI THDRAW ITS APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. SINCE THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILE D BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) THE CROSS-OBJECTION HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. 6. EVEN OTHERWISE AN ISSUE WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALI TY CANNOT BE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GARB OF FILING CROSS- OBJECTION THAT TOO FOR EXTENDING THE TIME OF LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKES IF ANY COMMITTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY IS THE ASSET OF H UF OR 4 ITA.NO.89/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.79/HYD/2015 DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF) KARIMNAGAR. INDIVIDUAL SINCE SUCH ISSUE CANNOT BE URGED BY WAY OF CROSS- OBJECTION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AS PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 7. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMIS SED ON ACCOUNT OF PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APART FROM THE FACT THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 49 DAYS. 8. AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 VBP/- COPY TO: 1. DR. V. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (HUF) H.NO.3-04-47 CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD KARIMNAGAR. 2. ACIT KARIMNAGAR CIRCLE KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. 3. CIT(A)-III HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-II HYDERABAD. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT A BENCH HYDERAB AD 6. GUARD FILE.