DR.A.V.SREEKUMAR V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI

ITA/192/2013

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dr. A.V. Sreekumar against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, concerning the assessment year 2004-05. The dispute arose from the sale of a flat in Bangalore, which was initially declared at a sale consideration of 9,10,000/-. However, evidence from a search conducted by the Income Tax Department revealed a total receipt of 14,00,000/-, with discrepancies in the amounts credited to the assessee's and her husband's bank accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) adjusted the sale consideration to 10,40,000/-, which was contested by both the assessee and the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the revised valuation, leading to the present appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758864 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: V V ASOKAN; K I MAYANKUTTY MATHER; MAHESH RAMAKRISHNAN; P RAHUL
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2004-05; Income tax appeal; Re-opening of assessments; Sale Consideration; Sale of flat; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935 ITA.No. 192 of 2013 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 691/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 08-02-2013 ............... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE : ------------------------------------------- DR.A.V.SREEKUMAR 'FRAGRANCE', VELLUR, PAYANNUR KANNUR. BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.RAHUL RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/REVENUE : --------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI, PIN-682015. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. No. 192 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of December, 2013 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, C.J. This appeal pertains to assessment year 2004-05. Though the search conducted by the Department lead to re- opening of assessments pertaining to the years right from 1999-2000, we are now concerned with the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of sale of apartment at Bangalore. 2. Though the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 by separate order and for the assessment year 2004-05, Tribunal considered all the three years together and passed a common order. So far as the present controversy, it relates to sale consideration received by the assessee by the sale of flat which said to have been purchased by the assessee in the year 1998- 99. The value of the flat was declared as `9,10,000/-. However, this was found to be incorrect from the material seized at the time of search. It revealed that total receipt was `14,00,000/- on sale of flat, out of which a sum of `9,50,000/- ITA No. 192 of 2013 -:2:- was credited to the bank account of the assessee and the balance amount of `4,50,000/- was credited to the bank account of her husband, Sri.A.V. Karunakaran. However, she tried to explain that the amount of `9,50,000/- includes `40,000/- for the sale of car parking. Her husband said to have received `2,50,000/- towards sale of furniture and `2,00,000/- towards cost for repairs done for the flat. She tried to substantiate the said contention even by securing the statement of son of the purchaser of the property by name one Ramkumar. On analysing the facts of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion, Mr.Ramkumar paid a total amount of `12,40,000/- out of which `2,00,000/- was towards repairs. Therefore, Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) concluded, the sale consideration of the flat should be taken as `10,40,000/-. Aggrieved by this opinion, both Revenue and the assessee were before the Tribunal. 3. Tribunal, after analysing the entire facts on record, opined that the enquiry conducted by the assessing officer revealed that `2,50,000/- said to have been received towards the value of the furniture was created statement but in fact it was ITA No. 192 of 2013 -:3:- not correct. Therefore, they have rejected the explanation given for `2,50,000/- towards sale value of furniture. Having regard to the fact that the buyer confirms the sale value at `10,40,000/-, Tribunal rightly opined that the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in fixing the sale consideration at `10,40,000/-. In the light of material from the above said facts, which was relied upon by the assessing officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal, we are of the opinion, there is no scope for further analysation of the facts to take a different opinion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/12/12 ITA No. 192 of 2013 -:4:- "