Shri R.K.Ramanathan General Power Attorney Holder of (Late) Smt.R.Kasiammal, Thanjavur v. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 239/CHNY/2008 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23921724 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AGDPK1094R
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 239/CHNY/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Shri R.K.Ramanathan General Power Attorney Holder of (Late) Smt.R.Kasiammal, Thanjavur
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 13-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 13-08-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 26-08-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO. 239/MDS/2008 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1610/MDS/2005) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001 R. KASIAMMAL (LATE) BY L/H SH. R.K. RAMANATHAN 15 3 RD CROSS ARULANANDA NAGAR THANJAVUR PAN : AGDPK1094R (APPLICANT) V. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I(3) CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI M. NARAYANAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT WHEN THE APPE AL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13.06.2006. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAD RECEIVED NO COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER FROM THE TRIBUNAL THERE AFTER. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE CAME TO KNOW ABOU T THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ONLY WHEN THE ORDER DATED 12.3.2008 W AS RECEIVED BY M.A. NO. 239/MDS/08 2 HIM. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN ITS APPEAL FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IT HAD ENTERED APPEARANCE. HE BEING THE LEGAL HEIR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL T O BE RECALLED. 2. WHEN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE WAS DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE WHEN THE ORDER WAS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT HEARING HIM. 3. PER CONTRA THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ONLY REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(APPEALS) FOR FRESH DISPOSAL IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A. ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (258 ITR 714). ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED D.R. NO PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER WAS CAUSED TO THE ASS ESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WAS REGA RDING RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDE RING THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS ON SCIE NTIFIC BASIS. RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: M.A. NO. 239/MDS/08 3 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD T HE LEARNED D.R. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRU CTED A KALYANA MANDAPAM CALLED KASI MAHAL AT THANJAVUR. THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.1 11 05 000/-. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS SPREAD OVER AND DECLARED FOR THREE YEARS FROM ASST. YEAR 99-2000 2000-01 AND 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2000-01 AS PER THE DEPARTM ENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT AT RS.76 26 325/- AS AGA INST THE DECLARED COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.57 00 000/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.19 26 325/- W AS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REPORT FROM THE REGISTERED V ALUER. ON THE BASIS OF THIS REPORT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. THE DELETION M ADE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION WITHO UT GIVING ANY REASON IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDINGS. HENCE THE F ILE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A. ABD UL RAHIM V. ITO (258 ITR 714) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN CPW D RATE IS APPLIED THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR FURTHER DEDUC TION @ 15% AND ALSO ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION TOWARDS SELF-SUPERV ISION CHARGES. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE THAT TRIBUNAL HAD ONLY RE MITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR FRE SH CONSIDERATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF A. ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (SUPRA). BEING A SET ASID E MATTER WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT PREJUDICED SINCE HE CAN RAISE HIS M.A. NO. 239/MDS/08 4 SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL WARRANTING INVOKATION OF THE RECTIFICATION POWERS V ESTED ON THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. THUS THERE BEING NO MERITS THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.08.2010. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABR AHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER CHENNAI. DATED THE 13 TH AUGUST 2010. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPLICANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE