, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.179/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-2012 SHRI. A. SIVANANDHAM, NO.2E SRI LAKSHMI NAGAR, PERIYANAICKENPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641 020. [PAN AJXPS 6896C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 5(1) COIMBATORE ( !' / APPELLANT) ( # $!' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. M.S. NETHRAPAL, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 31-05-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2017 % / O R D E R WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH ADVOCAT E V.P.MAHESH, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT, CITING MEDICAL REASONS, NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT HAS BEEN FILED. THAT APART, I ALSO FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF C31,96,000/- ASSAILED IN THIS APPEAL WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND ITA NO.179/MDS/2017. :- 2 -: CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) R EJECTING ASSESSEES CONTENTION REGARDING RECEIPT OF SALE PRO CEEDS MUCH IN EXCESS OF WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN REGISTERED DOCUMEN T FOR SALE. ASSESSEE HAD ARGUED THAT HIS DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCO UNT WITH M/S. ICICI BANK HAD COME FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF AN ANCESTRAL PR OPERTY RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN MY OPINION WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE F OR THE CONSIDERATION THAT HAD ACTUALLY PASSED. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, I FIND NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:31ST MAY, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF