Latha Vadivel, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 98/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3418 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL

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 M.P. NO.98/MDS/2015 (IN I.T.A. 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, ERSTWHILE BUSINESS WARD XV(2), PRESENTLY NON-CORPORATE WARD 3(5) CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*& /PETITIONER) ()+*,/ RESPONDENT) )*& . / /PETITIONER BY : SHRI ANANDD BABUNATH, CA )+*, . / / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2015 2!' . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETI TION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 03.07.2015. 2 M.P. NO.98/MDS/15 2. SHRI ANANDD BABUNATH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONER, SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE 5, PARA 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY GIVEN TO HER WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY SOLD FOR ` 14 LAKHS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. REFERRING TO THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL, MORE PARTICULARLY AT PAGE 8, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND WAS DISCLOSED IN THE COMPUTATI ON OF TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY TH AT NO MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ON A QUERY FROM THE BE NCH, OTHER THAN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, HE CLARIFIED THAT HE FILED THE SALE DEED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAS PAID ` 10 LAKHS TO THE VENDOR OF THE LAND. THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE DEDUCTED WH ILE MAKING THE ADDITION, IF ANY. THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE T RIBUNAL. 3 M.P. NO.98/MDS/15 4. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT OTHER THAN COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME, NO SUPPORTING MATERIAL WAS FILED IN THE FORM OF SAL E DEED TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, SOLD THE LAND FOR ` 14 LAKHS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED FOR PURCHASE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHOWS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ` 30 LAKHS. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF `1 0 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION WAS MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL AT P ARA 8 OF THE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A PROPE RTY WAS SOLD FOR ` 14 LAKHS AND WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELI ANCE ON THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER- BOOK. THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT HAS TO BE SUPPORTE D BY THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF THE LAND. ADMITTEDLY, A COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRI BUNAL. THEREFORE, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION STATEMENT, WITHO UT ANY FURTHER SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENT LIKE SALE DEED, IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT THE 4 M.P. NO.98/MDS/15 ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF ` 14 LAKHS, BEING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LANDED PROPERTY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL , THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. NOW COMING TO THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF ` 10 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND TO THE VENDOR, THIS FACT WAS DIS CUSSED ELABORATELY BY THIS TRIBUNAL AT PARA 8 OF THE ORDER . THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT HERE IS NO REFERENCE IN THE SALE DEED AB OUT THE PAYMENT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. IF AT ALL ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE, IT SHOULD BE OVER AND ABOVE THE S ALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PET ITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 M.P. NO.98/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. KRI. . )156 76'1 /COPY TO: 1. )*& / PETITIONER 2. )+*, /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT 5. 69 )1 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.