G.S.Sarojini, CHENNAI v. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 112/CHNY/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11221724 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABQPS2170L
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 112/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s)
Appellant G.S.Sarojini, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 09-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-08-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 09-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH A BEFORE SHRI PRADEEP PARIKH VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.112/MDS/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO.2945/MDS/2005) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 G.P.SAROJINI NO.46 HALLS ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 600010. PAN ABQPS 2170 L VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD- XIV(4) CHENNAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A.NO.113/MDS/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO.2944/MDS/2005) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 G.P.VASANTHI NO.46 HALLS ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 600010. PAN AAHPV 3803 D VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD- XIV(3) CHENNAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANTS BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.R.MEENA CIT-DR O R D E R PER PRADEEP PARIKH V.P. BY THESE TWO APPLICATIONS THE TWO ASSESSEES SEEK RECTIFICATION OF THE COMBINED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.11.2009. SINCE THE MATTER HAS A CHEQUERED HISTOR Y IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO BRIEFLY MENTION AS TO HOW IT HAS TRAVELLED SO FAR. 2. THE APPEALS WERE ORIGINALLY DISPOSED OF BY THE T RIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED 13.4.2007 WHEREIN THE APPEALS WE RE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE SAID ORDER WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN MA NOS.122 & 131/MDS/2007 BY ORDER DATED 31.12.2007. T HE 2 MA 112 & 113/10 ORDER WAS RECALLED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO DEAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NARRATED IN PARAGRAPH 4.1 OF THE MA ORDER. AN EXTRA CT OF PARAGRAPH 4.1 IS REPRODUCED BELOW : THE PETITIONER HAD INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO RAISE GROUND IN RELATION TO ADOPTION CORRECT CONSTRUCT COST IN THE GROUNDS FILED BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. WHICH GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) IN GROUND NO.5 VIZ. WITHOUT PREJUDICE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F BE GRANTED FOR THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT SPENT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF ` 89 32 261/-. AND THE RELEVANT PAPERS WERE ON RECORD BEFORE THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A). THE PETITIONER CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR KIND CONSIDERATION. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS : THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BEFORE HER AND THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAID GROUND AND ALLOWED THE SAME. SINCE ALL THE PARTICULARS WERE ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A). THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. DATED 14 TH MARCH 2007. 3. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IN MA NOS.23 & 24/MDS/2008 WERE FILED SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER IN MA NOS.122 & 131/MDS/2007. THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.5.2 008 FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE APPEALS WH ICH WERE 3 MA 112 & 113/10 RECALLED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 WERE ALSO DISM ISSED ON 30.5.2008 FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE ASSESSEES AGAIN FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS IN MA NOS.232 & 233/MDS/2008. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 4.8.2009 RECALLED THE ORDER DATED 30.5.2008 I N ITA NOS.2944 & 2945/MDS/2005. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 26.11.2009 AND IT WAS PRONOUNCED AL SO ON THE SAME DAY. BY THIS ORDER THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER FOR DETERMINATION OF ADDITIONAL COST OF CONS TRUCTION AND TO GRANT EXEMPTION UNDER SEC.54F ON THE ADDITIO NAL AMOUNT. IT IS AGAINST THIS ORDER THE PRESENT APPLI CATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. 5. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THERE IS AN ACCIDENTAL SLIP IN MENTIONING SEC.54F AS AGAINST SEC.54. THEREFORE IT IS CONTENDED THAT AFT ER DETERMINING THE ADDITIONAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD GRANT EXEMPTION UNDER SEC.54 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPAR ENT ON RECORD AND HENCE NO RECTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. 6. IT IS TRUE THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THE AS SESSEES HAVE BEEN MENTIONING ABOUT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 54F ONLY. SOMEHOW THEIR REPEATED PLEA THAT IT IS AN ACC IDENTAL SLIP HAS GONE UNNOTICED. SINCE THE MATTER IS VERY O LD AND SINCE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BENCH ALSO HAS KEPT O N CHANGING WE ARE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT IS THE CORRECT POSITION. HOWEVER KEEPING IN MIND THAT JUS TICE SHOULD PREVAIL AT ANY COST AND THAT JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE THE VICTIM OF SUPERTECHNICALITIES WE AMEND THE LAST SE NTENCE IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF OUR ORDER DATED 26.11.2009 AS FOLLOW S : 4 MA 112 & 113/10 ACCORDINGLY WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION IF NOT SO DETERMINED AND TO ALLOW EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2009 STANDS RECTIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09.09.2010 . SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (PRADEEP PARIKH) VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI DATED THE 09 TH SEPT. 2010 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR