2012 (9) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8850 square yards at Hyderabad for a sale consideration of Rs. 22,42,00,000/-. The seller was Sri Muralimohan Kosaraju, resident of USA. Since no TDS had been deducted on these payments the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee asking it to show cause why orders u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) should not be passed on such payments. The ld. AR of the assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that in the registered deed, the address mentioned was of a locality named Berban, Hyderabad, therefore, the vendor was treated as an Indian resident and no tax was deducted. It was further stated that the vendor has given an oral assurance that he would pay the capital gains tax which he did on the due date of first installment of advance tax i.e. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i filed additional ground of appeal before us while appearing before us i.e. in "A" Bench, in response to the notice fixing the case of hearing on 04/09/2012. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel raised the issue of admission of additional ground regarding jurisdiction of the AO, which was not raised before the lower authorities. When this ground was taken up for hearing, the Bench pointed out that there was no petition to justify the admission of additional ground, therefore, the Bench wanted the counsel to decide as to whether the ground is to be treated as pressed or withdrawn. The learned counsel consented to withdraw the ground. 8. However, as soon as the Bench got over, the learned counsel requested the Bench to restore the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the decision of Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Hydraulics Ltd., [2006] 99 ITD 310 (Chennai). In this case the Revenue filed M.A. arising out of the order of the Tribunal, which was signed by the AR of the Revenue. The issue raised was whether the MA was maintainable or not. In this connection, the Chennai Bench held as follows:- "The only interested persons in the result can draw the attention of the Tribunal to a mistake it has made and the Tribunal has to act on representation made to it by the assessee or by the department, i.e., through the AO only who is party to the appeal. The assessee or the AO has a right just like a party to draw the attention of the Tribunal to a mistake it might have made but they have a furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) and equates the procedure for filing of appeal with that of these applications under sub- rule (2) to rule 34A of the Tribunal Rules, 1963. The only exception is with the filing of applications or the appeal by the assessee. The system as enumerated for filing of return of income is provided under section 140 wherein it is mentioned that return by the assessee is to be signed or the situations as described in the provisions will apply to the appeal as well as various applications to be filed to the Tribunal. As far as the revenue is concerned, the miscellaneous petition as well as the appeals are to be signed by the AO and none other than the AO. But in the instant case, the department was at liberty to file a fresh miscellaneous petition....