ITO, CHENNAI V. Shri A.J.Mohan, CHENNAI

ITA 114/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8718 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVASRINIVAS IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 54F; 68; 69; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.114/MDS/2013, C.O.NO.84/MDS/2013 (IN ITA NO.114/MDS/2013) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD II(2). CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI. A.J. MOHAN, NO.140/45, SUBRAMANIA MUDALI STREET, IST FLOOR, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015. [PAN AANPM 4141P] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI. SHIVA SRINIVAS, IRS, JCIT. !'# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE. & $ ' ( /DATE OF HEARING : 05-07-2016 ) $ ' ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-07-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, CHENNAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 2 -: ITA NO.493/2011-12, DT 28.09.2012 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 2. THE ID. CIT (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDIT ION INTO 5 LAKHS OUT OF THE ADDITION OF 16 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1. THE ID. C!T(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE STAND TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.16 LAKHS I S OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE FLAT, THOUGH IT IS CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL EVIDENCES GATHERED DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2.2 THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN TAKING THE GUIDELINE VA LUE ADOPTED AS PER SEC. 50C OF.THE I. T. ACT FOR THE PU RPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAINS AS EXPLAINED SOURCE FO R UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL T RANSFER OF MONEY. 2.3 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BY WAY OF CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT, WHEN ANY FRESH EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. THUS THE DEPARTMENT WAS PREVENTED FROM VERIFYING OF SUCH EVIDENCES AS PER RULE 46A, BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE L.D . CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,77,750 MADE U/S 69 OF THE I. T.ACT. 3.2. THE ID. C!T(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE STAND TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.18.77 LAKHS IN ACQUIRING A HOUSE PLOT IS OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERA TION OF THE FLAT THOUGH IT IS CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL EVID ENCES GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. 3.3 THE ID. CITO ERRED IN TAKING THE GUIDELINE VALU E ADOPTED AS PER SEC. 50C OF THE I. T. ACT FOR THE PU RPOSE OF CALCULATING CAPITAL GAINS AS EXPLAINED SOURCE FO R UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL TRA NSFER OF MONEY. ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 3 -: 3.4 THE ID. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BY WAY OF CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT, WHEN ANY FRESH EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. THUS THE DEPARTMENT WAS PREVENTED FROM VERIFYING OF SUCH EVIDENCES AS PER RULE 46A, BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF SOUTHERN RAILWAYS AND FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.07.2009 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF <1,85,614/- AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS BASED ON AIR INF ORMATION WERE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AGGREGATE CASH DEPOSITS OF <10,00 ,000/- AND ABOVE IN BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND GAVE CLARIFICATIONS ON DISPUTED ISSUES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF INDIA, T. NAGAR BRANCH, CHENNAI FOUND CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO <20,18,000/-. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EX PLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT CHENNAI OF SMT. B. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND FAMILY FUNDS. SINCE, THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER COULD NOT ASCERTAIN ANY INFORMATION ON SALE TRANSACTION AND B ANK ACCOUNT CASH DEPOSITS HAS ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY SMT. B. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND RECORDED SWORN STATEMENT ON ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 4 -: 25.10.2011. THE PURCHASER HAS AFFIRMED THAT SHE H AS PURCHASED PROPERTY BY REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 24.10.2008 FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF <21,00,000/-. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE ANN EXURE 1-A OF THE SALE DEED FOUND THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY WAS < 27,00,000/- AND NO REASONS WERE PROVIDED FOR CONSIDERING THE SALE VALU E AS <21,00,000/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE GAVE EX PLANATIONS AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY SOLD ON CONSTRUCTION, BUILDER AGREE MENT AND FAMILY PARTITION FROM 1934 TO 2008 AND TREATED THE PROPER TY BELONGS TO HUF. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INVESTIGATED IN DEPTH ON THE FACTS AND OBSERVED AT PAGE 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER AND APPLIED THE DECISIO N OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT AND ADOPTED MARKET VALUE AT <27,00,0 00/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE FOUND THAT AFTER SALE OF PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND AT TAM BARAM ON 06.11.2008 BY REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR CONSIDERATION OF <18,7 7,750/- BY CASH. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE DISCUSSED POINTWISE ON ASSESSEES FAMILY PROPERTIE S AND BANK DEPOSITS AT PAGE 5 TO 8 OF THE ORDER AND CONCLUDED THAT THE P ROPERTY SOLD IS IN INDIVIDUAL STATUS AND TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE DISPU TED ISSUE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER ( DVO) VALUED THE PROPERTY AS PER VALUATION REPORT DATED 28.12.2011 FOR A TOTA L VALUE OF <36,07,001/- ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 5 -: CONSISTING OF VALUE OF LAND <19,80,000/- AND BUILDI NG <16,27,001/-. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE VALUE ADOP TED FOR STAMP DUTY VALUATION <27,00,000/- FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND DISALLOWED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF <14,86,277/- REFERRED AT PAGE 11 OF THE ORDER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD INVESTED IN NEW ASSET AT TAMBARAM, AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTY WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL PR OPERTY BEFORE 24.10.2011 BUT NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCE D THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER PURCHASE OF LAND HAS CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE PROPERTY AND EXEMPTION WAS DENIED AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE LIABLE FOR TAXATION. IN RESPECT OF AGGREGATE CASH DEPOSITS IN ASSESSEE BANK ACCOUNT AS PER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE A MOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM HUF ACCOUNT AND THE EXPLANATIONS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY AND MADE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE INVESTMENT IN TAMBARAM LAND WAS ON PAYMENT OF CASH AND SUBMISSIONS ON THE SOURC ES ARE NOT ACCEPTED AND AMOUNT OF <18,77,750/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENTS U/S.69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE MADE FIXED DEPOSIT S AND HAS NOT OFFERED INTEREST ON DEPOSITS INCLUDING SAVING BANK ACCOUNT <39,206/- FOR TAXATION AND ADDED TO RETURNED INCOME ALONGWITH OTHER ADDITI ONS AND PASSED ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 6 -: ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND APPLICABILIT Y OF PROVISIONS OF SECS. 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT AND THE CLAIM OF EXEMP TION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS <14,86,277/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY AND DISCLOSED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT <21,00,000/- AN D BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE GUIDELINE VALUE AND THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW CLAIM U/S.54 OF THE ACT WAS DISMISSED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED PURCHASE OF LAND FOR <18,77,500/- BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT O N RECORD IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN CONSTRUCTION OF RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE ON LAND AT TAMBARAM. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.54 OF THE ACT AND CONFIRM ED THE SAME. 4.1 IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE FOR NON SATISFA CTORY EXPLANATIONS OF CASH DEPOSITS OF <16,00,000/- IN STATE BANK OF INDI A ON 24.10.2008. THE ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 7 -: EXPLANATION ENVISAGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TH E PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF <32,00,000/- AND RECEIVED 50% BY CHEQUE AND CASH. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF <16,00,000/- IN BAN K ACCOUNT AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS BEING CASH R ECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE VA LUE OF PROPERTY AT <27,00,000/- INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MADE AN MATHEM ATICAL EQUATION THAT OUT OF <27,00,000/- I.E. <16,00,000/- WERE REC EIVED BY CHEQUE AND BALANCE <11,00,000/- BY CASH FROM SALE OF PROPERTY. ON COMPARISON OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT <16,00,000/-, THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE SOURCE FOR CAS H DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF <11,00,000/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION O F BALANCE <5,00,000/-. 4.2 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEALT ON THE ASPECTS OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S.69 OF THE A CT, WERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND AT TAMBARAM ON 06.11.2008 BY REG ISTERED SALE DEED AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT TO TAX THE SA ID AMOUNT AS NO PROPER EXPLANATIONS WERE PROVIDED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED <18, 77,750/- IN LAND. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE FOR LAND IS SUPP ORTED WITH SALE CONSIDERATION OF PARTY AND WAS UTILIZED FOR INVESTM ENT IN LAND AND BANK DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME SOURCE FROM SALARY ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 8 -: INCOME. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) FOUND THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE PARTLY ADJUSTED IN BANK DEPOSITS TO TH E EXTENT OF <11,00,000/- AND BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION ALONGWI TH SAVING OF SALARY INCOME WAS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN LAND AT TAMBA RAM AND DELETED THE ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED THE GROUND O F THE ASSESSEE. 4.3 FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS AND PASSED THE ORDER DATED 28.09.201 2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TR IBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARG UED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN R ESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO <5,00,000/- AS AGAINST <16,00,000/- MAD E BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE FACT BEING <16,00,0 00/- RECEIVED BY CASH IS CONTRA TO MATERIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT CALLIN G FOR THE COMMENTS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRAYED FOR SET ASIDE OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5.1 CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 9 -: NO FRESH EVIDENCE FILED AND THEREFORE THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE BE DISMISSED. 5.2 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE THAT FRESH MATERIAL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DENIED OPPO RTUNITY TO VERIFY. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION BY CHEQUE AND CASH WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SATISFIED WITH AVAILABLE SOU RCES AND PARTLY ALLOWED GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND N O FRESH EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE BENCH RAISED QUESTION TO IDENTIFY THE SUBMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE NOT CONVENING AND COULD NOT GIVE SATISFACTORY R EPLY. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEALT EXHAUSTIVELY ON THE PROVISIONS AND CASH FLOW DEPOS ITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER HAVING NOT SATISFIED WITH AVAILABILITY OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF <5,00,000/- DUE TO THE DEFICIENCY OF SOURCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE GROUND AND THE REVENUE GROUND IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 10 -: 6. ON THE SECOND GROUND, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF <18,77,750/- U/S.69 OF THE ACT, AND THE REVENUE IS CHALLENGING THE EVIDENCE AND APPLI CABILITY OF PROVISIONS SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SOURCE FOR INVE STMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE AFTER SALE OF PROPERTY ON 24.10 .2008 HAS PURCHASED LAND AT TAMBARAM BY REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 06.11.2 008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF <18,77,750/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND AS ON THE DATE OF APPELLATE PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE SAID LAN D AND DENIED EXEMPTION U/SEC. 54 OF THE ACT. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT INVESTMENTS IN LAND MADE OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY AT CHENNAI. THE LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS EQUATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION SO URCES BEING <11,00,000/- AS SOURCE FOR BANK DEPOSITS AND BALANC E <16,00,000/- WAS UTILIZED ALONGWITH SAVING AND RECEIPTS OF SALARY F OR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED EXCEPT BIFURCATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEALT BASED ON THE INFORMATION ON REC ORD HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND NO FRESH EVIDENCE WAS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 11 -: APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON TH IS GROUND ALSO AND DISMISS THE REVENUE GROUND. 7. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. WE TAKE UP C.O.NO.84/MDS/2013:- THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS). THE GROUND NOS. 2,3 & 4 ARE SIMILAR FOR CLAIM OF EXEM PTION U/S.54 AND 54F OF THE ACT, WE FOUND FROM RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ONLY PURCHASED LAND ON 06.11.2008 AND NOT CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY BEING 24.10.2 008 AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REFERRED A T PAGE 3 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY IN T.NAGAR ON 24.10 .2008. THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE FLAT WAS <32,00,0 00/-, HOWEVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION THE VALUE WAS SHOWN AT <21, 00,000/-. CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS ON FACTS , WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF T HE ASSESSEE. 9. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN PARTL Y SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF <5 LAKHS OUT OF <16 LAKHS ASSESSEE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 12 -: 9.1 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO <5,00,000/ - OUT OF <16,00,000/- BANK DEPOSITS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) VERIFIED THE SOURCES AVAILABLE AS PER VALUE ADOPTED BY THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER WERE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT <16,00,000/- BY CHEQUE AND BALANCE BY CASH AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR <32,00,000/- BEING <16,00,000/- BY CHEQUE AND <16,0 0,000/- BY CASH. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GUIDELINE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AT <27,00,000/- HAVE TO THE RE-ARRANGED AND CALCULATE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND DENYING THE CLAIM U/SEC. 54 OF TH E ACT, THEREFORE IT IS NOT A PRUDENT PRACTICE TO SHIFT THE VALUE ADOPTED A S PER LAW AND FURTHER ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE CLAIM OF 100% SOURCE FOR D EPOSITS IN BANK. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENT ION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND WE DISMISS THE GROUND . 10. THE LAST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESS MENT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS OF <39,206/-. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT OFFERED INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS MADE OUT OF CASH DEPOSIT S FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSE, WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED IN ASSESSMENT AND AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.114/2013 & C.O.NO.84/2013 :- 13 -: AND WE DONT FIND INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND AND WE DISMISS THE GROUN D OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JU LY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ' . ( ) ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) * %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER *& / CHENNAI + / DATED: 21ST JULY, 2016. KV , $ './ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 2. !'# / RESPONDENT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 4. 1' / CIT 5. /4 5 '6 / DR 6. 5 7 8 & / GF