M;Lakshmanan, CHENNAI V. ITO, Theni

ITA 3356/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7400 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Revised return
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.3355 & 3356/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013. SHRI. M. LAKSHMANAN, NO.129A, KAMARAJ LANE STREET, NEAR SBI, THENI 625 531. [PAN ABXPL 1009N] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, THENI. ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 01-03-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-03-2017 & / O R D E R THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST ORDERS DATED 07.10.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAI D THE ADMITTED TAX FOR THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN VOLUNTARILY FILED BY IT. ITA NO. 3355 & 3356/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, ASSESSEE HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 19.03.2015 AND AS PER THIS RETURN THEY WAS NO TAX PAYABLE BY THE A SSESSEE. IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 WAS CONCERNED, LD. AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLE D BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE A RETURN ON 26.03.2015 PU RSUANT TO A NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND TAX RESULTING FROM SUCH INCOME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CON SIDERED AS TAX PAYABLE ON ADMITTED INCOME. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM , LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISM ISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PAYMENT OF TAX. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN SO FAR AS ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011- 2012 IS CONCERNED ASSESSEE HAD INDEED MENTIONED BEF ORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT HE HAD FI LED A SECOND REVISED RETURN ON 19.03.2015 BASED ON WHICH NO TAX WAS PAYABLE. PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER RECORDS THIS FACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, IT W AS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PAID THE TAX ON ITA NO. 3355 & 3356/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: ADMITTED INCOME AS PER THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 19.03.2015 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED IN LIMINIE AS PER THIS OFFICE LETTER DATE D 19.09.2016. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE APPELLANT FILED HIS REPLY DATED 05.10.20 16. IN THIS REPLY IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITO COMPELLE D THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE RETURN ADMITTING HIGHER INCOM E AND IN FACT THE THEN AUDITOR ALONG WITH THE LEARNED ITO GOT THE BLANK FORM FILLED UP WITH SHORT TERM CAPITA L GAINS ON SALE OF VEERAPANDI LAND ADOPTING 50C VALUE . IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED ANOTH ER REVISED RETURN ON 31.03.2015 AS PER WHICH NO SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAYABLE. IT IS PRAYED THAT 140A TAX PAYMENT FOR THE FIRST RETURN U/S.148 MIGHT BE WAIVED AND THE APPEAL BE DECIDED ON MERITS. WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAX FOR THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM IN THE RETURN FILED ON 19.03.2015 PURSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT CO NSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER REVISED RETU RN FILED ON 31.03.2015 NO TAX WAS PAYABLE. WHEN NO TAX WAS PAY ABLE AS PER REVISED RETURN, WHETHER THE APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PAYMENT OF TAX AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN, IS AN ISS UE WHICH IN OUR OPINION REQUIRES A CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 AND REMIT IT BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATIO N AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO. 3355 & 3356/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: 5. COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013, THERE IS A CLE AR FINDING BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 31.03.2015 ADMITTING INC OME OF G19,47,379/- AND TAX LIABILITY OF G3,85,395/- WHICH WAS NOT PAID . EVEN NOW THE TAX HAS NOT BEEN REMITTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AP PEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013, IN MY OPINION WAS RIGHT LY DISMISSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-2012 AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, WHERE AS THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY O F MARCH, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 29TH MARCH, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF