Latha Vadivel, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1922/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 192221714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1922/MDS/2014 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 MS. LATHA VADIVEL, FLAT NO.C,FF, ARUNACHALA HOMES, 13/5, SADASIVAM STREET, GOPALAPURAM, CHENNAI - 600 086. PAN : ABIPL 1589 J V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANANDD BABUNATH, CA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 24.06.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2015 / 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, CHENNA I, DATED 31.03.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 I.T.A. NO.1922/MDS/14 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 30 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. SHRI ANANDD BABUNATH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND PUR CHASED A PROPERTY THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 FOR A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND FELT THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY MAY BE CANCELLED AT ANY TIME, HE OPTED TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED IN HER NAME. THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THOUGH IN THE SALE DOCUMENT, THE CO NSIDERATION WAS SHOWN AT ` 30 LAKHS AND PAID STAMP DUTY FOR REGISTRATION, THER E WAS NO CONSIDERATION PASSED ON BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. 4. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSES SEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 14 LAKHS, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER. THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND PAID ` 10 LAKHS TO THE VENDOR. THEREFORE, THESE AMOUNTS HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED WHILE MAKING ADDI TION, IF ANY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THIS SUBMISSIO N IS AN ALTERNATIVE 3 I.T.A. NO.1922/MDS/14 ONE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IF ` 24 LAKHS WAS ALLOWED, WHAT WAS UNEXPLAINED IS ONLY ` 6 LAKHS. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHAS ED A PROPERTY FROM ONE SHRI R. VENKATESAN FOR ` 30 LAKHS AND AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF ` 30 LAKHS TO THE VENDOR. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSB AND IS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT OF THE VENDOR AND THE TRANSACTION WAS BETWEEN VENDOR AND THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERAT ION WAS PASSED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID SHRI VENKATESAN. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT NOW SAY THAT THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION PASS ED ON FROM HER. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), T HE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAI LS REGARDING SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 24 LAKHS SAID TO BE AVAILABLE WITH HER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, SH OWS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION PASSED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI VENK ATESAN WAS ` 30 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IN FACT THERE W AS NO SALE 4 I.T.A. NO.1922/MDS/14 CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE SALE DEED C OULD BE EXECUTED WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER -BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY SA ID TO BE EXECUTED BY SHRI R. VENKATESAN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEES HUSBAND. THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY DOES NOT SAY ANYTH ING ABOUT PAYMENT OF ` 10 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ANOTHER SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENT AT PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER- BOOK CLAIMING THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAS PAID ` 10 LAKHS, SINCE THE SAID SHRI VENKATESAN AGREED TO SELL THE L AND TO THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND FOR A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS. IF THE RECITALS IN THE SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENT ARE TRUE, THEN THERE IS NO IMPE DIMENT FOR THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND TO GET THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED IN HIS NAME AND GET IT REGISTERED DIRECTLY FROM THE SAID SHRI VENKA TESAN. INSTEAD OF GETTING THE DOCUMENT IN HIS NAME, IT IS NOT KNOWN W HY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHOULD EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT IN T HE NAME OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE SUSPICIOUS AND IT CANNOT BE RELIED UP ON. MOREOVER, WHEN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SHRI VENKA TESAN THROUGH HIS POWER AGENT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ` 30 LAKHS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT LEAD ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE TO CONTRO VERT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT UNLESS THE VENDOR EXECUTE S A RECTIFICATION 5 I.T.A. NO.1922/MDS/14 DEED TO RECTIFY THE STATEMENT, IF ANY WRONGLY MADE IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECTIFICATION DEED, THE RECIT AL IN THE SALE DEED HAS TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID ` 30 LAKHS FOR PURCHASING THE LAND FROM THE SAID SHRI VENKATESAN AND THE DOCU MENT WAS EXECUTED BY HER HUSBAND IN HIS CAPACITY AS POWER OF ATTORNEY OF SHRI VENKATESAN. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS , THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SHE SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR ` 14 LAKHS, SHE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) INS PITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HER. EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DETAILS FOR TRANSFER OF LAND AND COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 14 LAKHS. IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUIRED MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT ACT UPON TH E ORAL STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SALE OF THE PROP ERTY AND AVAILABILITY OF ` 14 LAKHS WITH HER. 8. NOW COMING TO THE PAYMENT OF ` 10 LAKHS SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THE SALE DEED DOES NOT SAY ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER 6 I.T.A. NO.1922/MDS/14 FOUND THAT EVEN IF THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEES HUSBAND, THEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION MAY BE ` 40 LAKHS AND NOT ` 30 LAKHS. IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL C ANNOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS CONFIRMED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 3 RD JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 3 RD JULY, 2015. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI-34 4. 0 81 /CIT-V, CHENNAI-34 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.