SOMASUNDARAM KUMAR VERSUS, TRICHY V. ITO,WARD 3(2), TRICHY

ITA 3427/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6568 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43CA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3427/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16. SHRI SOMASUNDARAM KUMAR, OLD NO.17, NEW NO.21, 2 ND FLOOR, 8 TH CROSS MAIN ROAD, THILLAI NAGAR, TRICHY-620 018. PAN : AHYPK 7550 N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : NONE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL.CIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2019 34) / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2019 / 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) -1, TRICHY , DATED 12.10.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD WAS RETURNED BY THE PO STAL 2 I.T.A. NO.3427/CHNY/18 AUTHORITIES WITH POSTAL ENDORSEMENT PARTY LEFT WIT HOUT INSTRUCTION. RETURNED TO SENDER. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO MACHINER Y TO TRACE OUT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SERVE THE N OTICE ON HIM. WHENEVER THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS AFTER FIL ING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO INT IMATE THE CHANGE BY FILING A REVISED FORM 36 SO THAT THE NOTICE OF HEAR ING CAN BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASON, THIS TRIBUNAL IS EXPECT ED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED TWO IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ONE O N 23.02.2015 FOR 1,26,00,000/- AND ANOTHER PROPERTY ON 18.11.2014 FOR 29,76,925/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESS EE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON 18.11.2014 FROM HIS WIFE FOR 29,76,925/-. NO CASH WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED 3 I.T.A. NO.3427/CHNY/18 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF 29,76,925/- WAS TREATED AS DUE FROM HIS WIFE AND IT WAS ALSO REFLECTED AS D UE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE LAND ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO SHRI G. BALASUNDARAM AND SHRI G. RAJAGO PAL. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 18 .11.2014 TO SHRI S. KUMAR. THE SAID SHRI KUMAR CONVERTED THE PROPER TY INTO HOUSING PLOTS AND SOLD THE SAME ON 30.03.2015. ACCORDING T O THE LD. D.R., THE SALE DEED DISCLOSES THE PAYMENT OF 29,76,925/- TO SMT. K. RADHIKA. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO MONEY WAS PAID TO SMT. RADHIKA IS NOT CORRECT. HENCE, ACCORD ING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF 29,76,925/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ONE MORE GROUND WIT H REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF 5,04,460/- UNDER SECTION 43CA OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO T HE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SALE VALUE OF THREE PLOTS TO 4,32,000/-. THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES ADOPTED THE VALUE AT 9,36,460/-. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., UNDER SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT, THE SALE VALUE OF THE PLOTS WAS TAKEN AS 9,36,460/-. 4 I.T.A. NO.3427/CHNY/18 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. D.R., WE ALSO PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO MATERIAL IS PRODU CED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL EXCEPT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO MONEY WAS PAID TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE SALE D EED EXECUTED BY HIS WIFE. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT APPEARS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINA LLY BELONGED TO SHRI G. BALASUNDARAM AND SHRI G. RAJAGOPAL AND THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. K. RADHIKA IN HER CAPACITY AS POWER OF AT TORNEY AGENT, EXECUTED THE DOCUMENT ON 18.11.2014 IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. AS PER THE RECITAL FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SALE DEED DISCLOSES A RECEIPT OF 29,76,925/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO MONEY WAS PAID TO HIS WIFE FOR EXECUTION OF THE DOC UMENT. THE ASSESSEES WIFE IS ONLY A POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT, EXECUTED DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF SHRI G. BALASUNDARAM AND SHRI G. RAJAGOPAL. THEREFORE, THE MONEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN P AID TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER SHRI G. BALASUNDARAM AND SHRI G. RAJ AGOPAL THROUGH THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. K. RADHIKA. SINCE THE REG ISTERED SALE DEED DISCLOSES THE PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF 29,76,925/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION DISBELIEVING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO MONEY WAS PAI D. 5 I.T.A. NO.3427/CHNY/18 6. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THERE IS A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE ORAL STATEMENT AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEE D WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE ORAL STATEMENT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEAL S) HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACC EPTABLE TO HIM. SINCE NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT NO MONEY WAS PAID OTHER THAN THE ORAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED HAS TO B E TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF 5,04,460/-, SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT CLEARLY SAYS THAT WHEN THE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS FROM TRANSFER OF SUCH A SSET, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. SECTION 43C A CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2014. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY MUCH APPLIC ABLE, HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE 6 I.T.A. NO.3427/CHNY/18 WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDING LY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 30 TH APRIL, 2019. KRI. / -278 98)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A)-1, TRICHY 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, TRICHY-2, TRICHY 5. 8; -2 /DR 6. <( = /GF.