Smt. Chitra Bhaskaran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1678/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9632 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN SHRI S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1678/CHNY/2012 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. CHITRA BHASKARAN, NO.3, ROYAL GARDEN, KESHAVAPERUMALPURAM, CHENNAI - 600 028. PAN : AAEPC 8288 L V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), CHENNAI. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 25.10.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI, CHENN AI, DATED 09.02.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SH. N. DEVANATHAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS 2 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 DISALLOWANCE OF 1 CRORE PAID TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, DR.K. CHOCKALINGAM BEING THE CONFIRMING PARTY IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS DR.K. CHOCKALINGAM, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. BY SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 24.12.2001, DR. CHOCKALINGAM SETTLED THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE SMT. CHITRA CHOCKALINGAM AND DR.DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM. AC CORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SMT. CHITRA CHOCKALINGAM AND DR.DE EPA CHOCKALINGAM EXECUTED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE P ROPERTY AT LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI. IN THE SALE DEED, DR. CHOCKALINGAM WAS REFERRED AS CONFIRMING PARTY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT A SUM OF 1 CRORE WAS PAID TO DR. CHOCKALINGAM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE P AID 1 CRORE, THE SALE CANNOT BE COMPLETED. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, AFTER THE EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED ON 24.12.2001 BY DR. C HOCKALINGAM IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS DAUGHTER, DR. DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM, WHAT IS THE TITLE OR RIGHT REMAINS IN FAVOUR OF DR. CHOCKALINGAM FOR PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY? THE LD .COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT BUT FOR THE PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE, THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD AT ALL. 3 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT AFTER E XECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED ON 24.12.2001 BY DR. CHOCKALINGAM, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, HE HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER OVER THE PROPERTY AT LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI. AFTER THE S ETTLEMENT DEED DATED 24.12.2001, THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER EXE CUTED THE SALE DEED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ON THE DATE OF SALE OF T HE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER, DR. CHOCKALINGAM, BEING THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, HAD NO TITLE OR RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT IS ONLY AN APPLICATION OF INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. BY REFERRING TO TH E NAME OF DR. CHOCKALINGAM AS CONFIRMING PARTY, THE ASSESSEE IS M AKING AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DR. CHOCKALINGAM WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNE R OF THE PROPERTY. ON 24.12.2001, DR. CHOCKALINGAM EXECUTED A SETTLEMENT 4 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 DEED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT LUZ CHURCH ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI, IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE, THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AND HIS DAUGHTER DR.DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM. THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF SET TLEMENT DEED DATED 24.12.2001, THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER BEC AME THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 5. ON EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER DR.DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM, DR. CHOCKAL INGAM HAS NO RIGHT OR TITLE WHATSOEVER OVER THE PROPERTY. DR . CHOCKALINGAM HAPPENED TO BE THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS THAT BUT FOR THE PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE, THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE SOLD. THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE TO DR. CHOCKALINGAM IS ONLY APPLICATION OF INCOME. HAVING NO RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY ON THE D ATE OF SALE, DR. CHOCKALINGAM NEED NOT BE A CONFIRMING PARTY FOR SAL E OF THE PROPERTY. BY REFERRING HIM AS CONFIRMING PARTY IN THE SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE 5 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI 4. 2 ;3 /CIT-IV, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.