T.Laavanya, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1627/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8451 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V NANDA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1627/MDS/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. T. LAAVANYA, NO.189/2, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AABPL 7032 Q V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD VIII(3), CHENNAI - 600 006. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. NANDAKUMAR, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2016 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 13, CHEN NAI, DATED 29.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SHRI D. ANAND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OWNER OF A PROPERTY ALONG WITH SMT. B. 2 I.T.A. NO.1627/MDS/16 SUSHEELA. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. B. SUSHEELA H AD EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF M/S JAYASWATHY CON STRUCTION PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI K.G. JANAKIRAMAN FOR SALE OF THE LAND. IN FACT, THE SAID JANAKIRAMAN SO LD THE LAND FOR A SUM OF ` 60 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS EE OFFERED THE SALE PROCEEDS FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAXATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, SAID TO HAVE OBTAINED AN AFFIDAVI T AND SALE RECEIPT ON 22.03.2013 FROM SHRI JANAKIRAMAN AND ON THE BASI S OF THAT SO- CALLED SALE RECEIPT, DETERMINED THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION AT ` 1,12,00,000/- AND THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DET ERMINED AT ` 56,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE SO- CALLED AFFIDAVIT AND SALE RECEIPT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF T HE ASSESSEE, EVEN A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT FURNISHED TO T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMMENT UPON THE SO-CALLED AFFIDAVIT AND SALE RECEIPT. THEREFORE, THE LD. COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN THE REAL FACTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE SO-CALLED AFFIDAVIT OF SALE RECEIPT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CO UNSEL, THE AFFIDAVIT AND SO-CALLED SALE RECEIPT IS NOT SIGNED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR SMT. SUSHEELA AND THERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF FORGING TH E DOCUMENT BY 3 I.T.A. NO.1627/MDS/16 SHRI JANAKIRAMAN. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI V. NANDAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT AND SA LE RECEIPT WAS SIGNED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. SUSHEELA. THE LD. D.R. ALSO FILED COPY OF THE SAME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VI EW OF THIS SALE RECEIPT WHICH DISCLOSES THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,12,00,000/-, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIG HTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SO-CALLED AFFIDAVIT AND SALE RECEIPT, A COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BY THE LD. D.R. THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DATE ON WHICH IT WAS SIGNED. EVEN PARAGRAPH 6 WAS LEFT BLANK. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FURNISH A COPY OF THE SO-CA LLED AFFIDAVIT AND 4 I.T.A. NO.1627/MDS/16 SALE RECEIPT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-8, CHENNAI-34 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.