Smt. Madhubala, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3031/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7947 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K N DHANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: LAKSHMICHAND NAHATA

Judgement Text

, B/ SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3031 /MDS./2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13) SMT.MADHUBALA, 96(NEW NO.129),ELDAMS ROAD, TEYNAMPET,CHENAI -18. VS. THE ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI. PAN AFAPM 8402 M ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : MR.LAKSHMICHAND NAHATA C.A $% ! ' # / RESPONDENT BY : MR.K.N.DHANDAPANI, JCIT, D.R & ' ' ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 31.01.2017 *+ ' ( ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.02.2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-4, CHENNA I DATED 22.08.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ITA NO. 3031/MDS/2016 2 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HER APPE AL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF LAND AS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY (POA) DID NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE THE REAL O WNER OF LAND. 3. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SH OWN IN HER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, AN AMOUNT OF ` 5.6 LAKHS AS AS PROFITS ON SALE OF LAND. ON ENQUIRY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 5.6 LAKHS SITUATED AT NO.53, CHITLAPAKKAM VILLAGE, TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPRUAM DISTRICT ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD A POA GIVEN BY MR.V.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI, SINCE HE HAD GONE ABROAD. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND HANDED OVER THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAME AND THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH THE CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE OWNE R, I.E. MR.V.SARAVANAN. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING POA OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY T HE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 3031/MDS/2016 3 AND THE SALES CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OUTST ANDING LIABILITY IN HER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT T O TAX IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE GOT THE POA OF THE PROPERTY NO .53, CHITLAPAKKAM VILLAGE, TAMBARAM TALUK, KANCHEEPRUAM DISTRICT FROM MR.V.SARAVANAN ON 08.02.2008. THE SAID PROPERTY WA S SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONE MR.S.MAHINDRA PRABHU ON 25.11.2011. THE ASSESSEE BEING A POA HOLDS THE POSSESSION OF THE PR OPERTY FROM THE DATE OF POA TILL THE DATE OF SALE AND THE SLAE CONS IDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS KEPT IN HER HANDS, NOT AT ALL H ANDED OVER TO THE VENDOR, DUE TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT IN THIS CASE THE RAIO LAID DOWN BY THE JUDGMENET OF JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C.SUGUMARAN IN 281 CTR 115( MADRAS) CANNOT BE APPLIED. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR OPINION, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS CAP ITAL GAINS IN THE ITA NO. 3031/MDS/2016 4 HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON SALE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY. HEN CE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 02 ND FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 02 ND FEBRUARY, 2017 . K S SUNDARAM. , ' $(-. /.( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 0( () / CIT(A) 5. .3 4 $(5 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. & 0( / CIT 6. 4 6 7 ' / GF