Shri S.Velliappan, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 628/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61210 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Cost of acquisition; Retraction; Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE -PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.624 TO 630/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09) SHRI S.VELLIAPPAN, C/O. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, NEW NO.14, OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI-600 020. PAN:AAAPV4219Q VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(2), CHENNAI-600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & ITA NOS.724 & 725/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2008-09) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(2), 3 RD FLOOR, 108/46, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. VS. SHRI S.VELLIAPPAN, C/O. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, NEW NO.14, OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI-600 020. PAN:AAAPV4219Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MR. K.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, ADVOCATE ASSESSEE BY : DR. S.MOHARANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 6 TH JUNE ,2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND JUNE, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.624 TO 630/MDS/2011 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 -03 TO 2008-09 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 2 OF THE CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI RELEVANT TO THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ITA NOS. 724 & 725/MDS/2011 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI DATED 18.12.2010. ITA NOS. 624, 626 & 628/MDS/2011 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDER DAT ED 13.12.2010 AND ITA NOS. 625, 627, 629 & 630/MDS/20 11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18.12.2010 P ASSED BY THE CIT(A). SINCE ALL THE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON IS SUES, THEY ARE BEING HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. ITA NOS.624 TO 630/MDS/2011 (ASSESSEES APPEALS): 2. ITA NOS.624 TO 630/MDS/2011 HAVE BEEN FILED WIT H DELAY OF 19 DAYS. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEALS. AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF A PPEALS CITING REASONS FOR THE DELAY HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. WE HAVE PERUSED THE GROUNDS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR DELAY I N FILING OF THE APPEALS. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 19 ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 3 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS THUS, ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS ARE ADMIT TED TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF OF THE CASE ARE: ON 6.2.2008, MR. V.PRASANNA VENKATESH, SON OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS INTE RCEPTED AT CHENNAI AIRPORT WHILE HE WAS TRAVELING BY AIR FR OM COIMBATORE TO CHENNAI. AN AMOUNT OF ` 26.48 LAKHS WAS RECOVERED FROM HIM. STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT T HE MONEY WAS RECEIVED AS ON MONEY FROM SALE OF TWO PLOTS A T COIMBATORE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HIS FATHER (THE ASSESSEE) HAD PURCHASED TWO PLOTS IN HIS NAME AT EKKATUTHANGA L IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND TWO PROPERTIES WERE PURC HASED BY HIS FATHER IN HIS WIFES NAME. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT OUT OF THE ABOVE SAID FOUR PLOTS TWO PLOTS WERE SOLD IN DE CEMBER, 2006 AND IN MARCH, 2007 AND THE REMAINING TWO PLOTS WERE SOLD NOW I.E. 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2008. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE DID NOT OWN ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY IN HIS OWN NAME. ON TH E ABOVE SAID STATEMENT OF MR. V.PRASANNA VENKATESH AND THE ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 4 STATEMENT OF HIS WIFE SMT. P.SUDHA, NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE MADE SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT ON 21.05.2008. IN HIS STATEMENT, HE ADMITTED THAT FOUR PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY HIM IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND HIS DAU GHTER-IN- LAW . HE GAVE THE DETAILS OF THE PLOTS AND HE FURTH ER ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY INCOME ON SALE OF THE ABOVE PLOTS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. MR. K.MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM, COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INITIATE D AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS ALL THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 153C ARE NOT SATISFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO CONNECT THE ASSESSE E WITH THE MONEY RECOVERED FROM MR. V.PRASANNA VENKATESH. HE STATED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED TWO PRE-REQUISITE C ONDITIONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C ARE M ISSING, ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 5 THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE ARE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERA TION WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESW ARI VS. ACIT., REPORTED AS 289 ITR 341. THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LA ND. NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES AT THE TIME OF SAL E OF LAND HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, DR.S.MOHARANA, REPRESENTING T HE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INCRIMINATING E VIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. MR.V.PRASANNA VENKATESH HAD M ADE CATEGORIC STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) ON 7.2.200 8 ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE FOUR PLOTS, TWO IN HIS NA ME AND TWO IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, AND THE PLOTS WERE PURCHAS ED BY HIS FATHER I.E. THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE FOUR PLOTS TWO WERE SOLD IN DECEMBER, 2006 AND MARCH, 2007 AND REMAINING TWO PL OTS WERE SOLD ON 6.2.2008 AND HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE DOES NOT ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 6 OWN ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY IN HIS NAME. THE DR FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT SMT. P.SUDHA, WIFE OF MR. V.PRASANNA VENKATESH MADE A SIMILAR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT T WO PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY HER FATHER-IN-LAW I.E. THE ASSESS EE AND THAT SHE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS T HE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PLOTS. ON 21.5.2008, THE ASSES SEE WAS EXAMINED AND HE ADMITTED THE FACT THAT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HIM IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTE R-IN-LAW. THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO RETRACTION OF STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSEE RETRACTE D FROM HIS STATEMENT GIVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THAT TOO WAS IN THE FORM OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC R ETRACTION FROM EARLIER STATEMENT. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN BOT H THE CASES I.E. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF HIS SON MR. V.PRASANNA VENKATESH, ASSESSMENT WAS DONE BY TH E SAME ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UN DER SECTION 153C, HE HAD RECORDED SATISFACTION AND HAD TAKEN NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , CENTRAL RANGE III, CHENNAI. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT A FTER ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 7 ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT, THE DR HAS PLACED ON RECORD, SW ORN STATEMENT OF SHRI S.VELLIAPPAN I.E. THE ASSESSEE, RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 21.5.200 8. IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY HIM IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND THAT THE MONEY BELONGED TO HIM ONLY. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME F ROM SALE OF THE ABOVE FOUR PLOTS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TH E STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- QN.NO.3: WHILE RECORDING THE SWORN STATEMENT U/S.132(4) ON 6/2/2008 FROM YOUR SON SHRI V. PRASANNA VENKATESH AT CHENNAI AIRPORT, WHILE ANSWERING QN.NO.4, HE STATED THAT 4 PLOTS IN THE LA Y OUT OF SHRI TAMILMANI AT COIMBATORE WERE PURCHASED BY YOU, TWO IN YOUR SONS NAME AND TWO IN YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAWS NAME. HE ALSO STATED THAT ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 8 PLOT NO.13 IN THE NAME OF YOUR SON SHRI PRASANNA VENKATESH AND PLOT NO.38 IN THE NAME OF SMT. P.SUDHA WERE SOLD ON 6.2.2008 BY RECORDING THE SALE PRICE OF ` 5,04,000/- AND ` 7,75,000/- RESPECTIVELY. HE ALSO STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 26.48 LAKHS I.E. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THESE TWO SALE DEEDS WAS BROUGHT ALONG WITH HIM FROM COIMBATORE TO CHENNAI BY FLIGHT JOURNEY. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT. P.SUDHA ON 9.5.2008, SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD NOT INCURRED ANY MONEY WHILE PURCHASING TWO PLOTS ON HER NAME. SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE DOESNT KNOW WHY THOSE TWO PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY YOU IN HER NAME. YOUR SONS STATEMENT AS WELL AS YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAWS STATEMENT STATE THAT THESE FOUR PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY YOU IN THEIR NAMES. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE PRICE, SALE PRICE OF THESE FOUR PLOTS AND THE SOURCES OF MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF THE PLOTS. ANS: THE ABOVE FOUR PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY ME IN THE NAME OF MY SON AND MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND THE MONEY BELONGS TO ME ONLY. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER:- PLOT NO. PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DATE OF PURCHASE PURCHASED PRICE ` SALE PRICE INCLUDING MONEY RECEIVED OVER AND DATE OF SALE SALE PRICE IN EXCESS OF PURCHASED PRICE ` ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 9 ABOVE RECORDED IN SALE DEED ` 12 PRASANNA VENKATESH 1/6/06 3,83,000 7,16,400 15/12/06 3,33,400 13 -DO- 1/6/06 3,83,000 16,15,220 6/2/08 12,32,220 17 P.SUDHA 1/6/06 3,84,000 7,20,000 7/3/07 3,36,000 38 -DO- 1/6/06 5,50,000 23,11,780 6/2/08 17,61,780 I HAVE NOT ADMITTED ANY INCOME ON THE SALE OF THE ABOVE FOUR PLOTS. NOW I WILL ADMIT THE INCOME I.E. SALE PRICE IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASED PRICE AS MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE AS MY INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE ASST. YEARS AND I WILL PAY THE TAX PAYAB LE THEREON. FURTHER, I WILL FILE RETURN/REVISED RETURN ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE W HICH IS AT PAGES 103 TO 109 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY HIM. TH E DR ALSO PLACED ON RECORD STATEMENT OF SHRI V.PRASANNA VENKA TESH RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) ON 7.2.2008 WHEREIN H E HAS STATED THAT FOUR PLOTS WERE PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER TWO IN HIS NAME AND TWO IN HIS WIFES NAME AND OUT OF THE FOUR PLOTS, TWO WERE SOLD IN DECEMBER, 2006 AND MARCH, 2007 AND THE BALANCE TWO WERE SOLD ON 6.2.2008. THE RELEVANT EXT RACT OF ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 10 THE STATEMENT OF MR.V.PRASANNA VENKATESH IS REPRODU CED HEREIN BELOW:- Q.NO.4: PLEASE GIVE DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES OF YOURSELF? ANS: IN MY NAME THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES AT EKATTUTHANGAL PURCHASED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 BY MY FATHER AND REGISTERED IN MY NAME. THERE WAS FOUR PLOTS, TWO IN MY NAME AND TWO IN MY WIFES NAME WHICH WAS ALSO PURCHASED BY MY FATHER. OUT OF THE FOUR TWO WERE ALREADY SOLD IN THE YEAR DECEMBER, 2006 AND IN MARCH, 2007 AND THE BALANCE TWO WERE SOLD TO-DAY I.E. 6.2.2008. I DO NO T OWN ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY IN MY NAME. 8. SIMILARLY, STATEMENT OF SMT. P.SUDHA, WIFE OF MR . V.PRASANNA VENKATESH UNDER SECTION 131 WAS RECORDED ON 9.5.2008, WHEREIN SHE HAD ADMITTED THAT SHE DOES N OT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE PLOTS WERE PURCHASED B Y HER FATHER-IN-LAW I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRA CT OF THE STATEMENT OF ADMISSION OF SMT. P.SUDHA IS REPRODUCE D HEREIN BELOW:- ANSWER 5: THE EXACT DATES OF THE PURCHASE OF THESE TWO PLOTS, I WILL SUBMIT ON 12.05.2008. WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES OF THE FUNDS, THE ENTIRE PURCHASE COST OF THE TWO PLOTS WERE MET BY FATHER-I N- LAW ONLY. I HAVE NOT INCURRED ANY MONEY TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THESE TWO PLOTS. ALL THE DETAILS I WILL SUBMIT ON 12.05.2008. ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 11 9. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND THE FACT T HAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC RETRACTION BY THE ASSESSEE AT A LATER STAGE AMPLY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE MONEY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS STRONG LINK EVIDENCE TO SHOW TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PLOTS IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSE SSEE FAILS. 10. AS REGARDS RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C IS CONCERNED, DR HAS PLACED ON R ECORD EXAMINATION NOTE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D SOUGHT NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , CENTRAL RANGE III, CHENNAI, BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID NOTE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF TH E STATEMENTS MADE BY SHRI V.PRASANNA VENKATESH, SON O F ASSESSEE MR. S.VELLIAPPAN, THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. P.SUDHA, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AGAI NST THE ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 12 ASSESSEE ARE NULL AND VOID, DOES NOT HOLD ANY GROUND. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL TH AT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPE NDITURE INCURRED ON THE SALE OF LAND, A PERUSAL OF DOCUMENT S ON RECORD AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THIS GROUND WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THEREFORE THE SAME IS DIS MISSED. 12. AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE OF COUNSEL ON THE JUDGE MENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN MANISH MAHESHWARI S CASE IS CONCERNED, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION AND HAD SOUGHT NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTH ORITY. THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT REFERRED TO BY THE COUNSEL DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT MADE SUBMISSIONS ON ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 13 THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFERRED TO A NY OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE PAPER BOOK, EXCEPT STATEMENT RECOR DED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AT PAG ES 103 TO 109 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 13. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDINGS, WE UPHOLD THE IM PUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A). NO INTERFERENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IS WARRANTED. ALL THE SEVEN AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. ITA NOS. 724 & 725/MDS/2011 (REVENUE APPEALS): 14. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS HAVE ASSAILED THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 18.12.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED INVEST MENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SO N AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AMOUNTING TO ` 17,10,470/- AND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RE-COMPUTING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS. SINCE IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PLOTS IS THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ALLOWED I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE HAS BEEN NO DUPLICATIO N OF ADDITION OR ALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES EITHER IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS SON MR. V.PRASANNA VENKATESH OR SMT . ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 14 P.SUDHA, HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. ADMITTEDLY, THE AMO UNT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOTS WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, ALTHOUG H THE DOCUMENTS WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF HIS SON MR . V.PRASANNA VENKATESH AND HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW MRS. S UDHA. ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SA Y THAT THERE WAS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE PURCHASE OF PLOTS. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXP ENDITURE ON THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT, THE CIT(A) SUSTAIN ED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF ` 2,70,715/- THE AMOUNT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMP DUTY AT T HE TIME OF PURCHASE. FOR THE REASONS RECORDED THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. SO FAR AS RECOMPUTATION OF THE PROFITS ON T HE SALE OF PLOTS IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT OUT OF THE FOUR PLOTS, 2 PLOTS WERE SOLD IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELE VANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND ARE THUS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE INCOME FROM SALE OF OTHER TWO PLOTS IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN ITA NOS.624TO 630, 724 & 725/MDS/11 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS BUSINESS INCOME AS THEY WERE SOLD ON 6.2.008. THE CIT(A) HAS COMPUTED THE PROFIT AFTER DEDUCTING STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES AT TH E TIME OF SALE AND THE INCOME RETURNED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN CORREC T VIEW AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPI NION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLE D FOR. THUS, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVO ID OF ANY MERIT. 16. TO SUM UP, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( DR. O.K.NARAYANAN ) ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND JUNE, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F .