Bhavy Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad vs Assessee

Bhavya Anant Udeshi The Income Tax Officer Hyderabad vs. (International Taxation)-I PAN AALPU3857A Hyderabad (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : Mr. Ajay Gandhi For Revenue : Mr. Ramakrishna Bandi

Date of Hearing : 30.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2015

ORDER

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.

In this miscellaneous application, assessee seeks rectification of mistake supposed to have been crept into the order dated 29.10.2014 passed in M.A.No.118/Hyd/2014.

2. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, we need to observe as per settled position of law the second miscellaneous application, that too on the very same issue is not maintainable, hence, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Even on merits also as can be seen, assessee has claimed that the ultimate sale deed is an outcome of the agreement of sale entered between the assessee and Smt. Neeraja Reddy in 1994. Therefore, as the transfer of property has taken place in pursuance to an 2 M.A.No.172/Hyd/2014 in MA.No.118/Hyd/2014 Arising out of ITA.No.2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad.

agreement executed prior to introduction of section 50C to the statute, such provision will not be applicable as per the decisions referred to by the assessee. Since, Tribunal has not considered this aspect there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal. In our view, this argument of the assessee is not at all acceptable. As can be seen the so-called agreement of sale (termed as 'Special Power of Attorney') was between the assessee and Smt. Neeraja Reddy whereas, sale deed executed by the assessee transferring the property was between the assessee and one Sri G. Srinivas Reddy executed on 23.10.2007 on receipt of sale consideration of Rs.74.20 lakhs. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale deed was an outcome of the so-called agreement of sale between the assessee and Smt. Neeraja Reddy. Moreover, all these arguments were advanced by the assessee not only at the time of hearing of the appeal but also during hearing of the first miscellaneous application. The Tribunal has considered not only the arguments of the assessee but all other factors and materials on record while coming to its conclusion at the time of disposal of appeal as well as the first miscellaneous application in M.A.No.118/Hyd/2014. The issue raised in the present M.A. is nothing but repetition of the same issue which were considered earlier by the Tribunal. Considered in aforesaid perspective, the present M.A. is nothing but an attempt by the assessee to seek a review of the decision taken by the Tribunal. That being the case, we do not find any merit in the present M.A. which is accordingly dismissed.

3. In the result, miscellaneous application of the assessee is dismissed.

3 M.A.No.172/Hyd/2014 in MA.No.118/Hyd/2014 Arising out of ITA.No.2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.02.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated 04th February, 2015

VBP/-

Copy to

1. Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad C/o. Gandhi & Gandhi, C.As., 1002, Paigah Plaza, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 063.

2. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad.

3. CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad

4. DIT (International Taxation), Hyderabad.

5. D.R. ITAT "A" Bench, Hyderabad.