SHANMUGASUNDARAM UMASHANKAR,ERODE V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(I/C), COIMBATORE

SA 57/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three stay petitions filed by Shanmugasundaram Umashankar, Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan, and P. Shanmugasundaram (HUF) against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(i/c), Coimbatore. The petitions arose from ITA Nos.1995, 1996 & 1997/Chny/2024 concerning the assessment years 2012-13. The core issue was the ownership and financial disclosure related to a property transaction involving the petitioners and a firm, M/s. SPP Silks, under which the petitioners claimed the property was purchased through the firm's accounts, despite the sale deed being in their individual names. The tribunal considered the payments already made by the assessee and the additional payment agreed upon during the hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107258 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAN BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: MUTHU ABIRAMI
• Keywords: Application of stay; FORM 26AS
• Section: 132; 133A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी महा वीर िसंह, उपा \u001f एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद' क े सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (े या िचका सं. / S.P Nos.57, 58 & 59/Chny/2024 (arising out of ITA Nos.1995, 1996 & 1997/Chny/2024) िनधा +रण वष+ / Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shanmugasundaram Umashankar, [PAN: AAFPU 0346C] Shanmugasundaram Karthikeyan, [PAN: AEEPK 4137L] P. Shanmugasundaram (HUF), [PAN: AACHP 1597H] C/o 531, Easwaran Koil Street, Erode-638 001. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(i/c), Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b\tयथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0007 क\f ओर से/ Appellant by : Smt. Muthu Abirami, Advocate \b\tयथ\u0007 क\f ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क\u0002 तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.10.2024 घोषणा क\u0002 तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President : When these stay applications were called for hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated the facts that in S.P No.57/Chny/2024 arising from ITA No.1995/Chny/2024, the outstanding demand is Rs.1,43,32,151/- and the assessee has already SP Nos.57 to 59/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: paid 20% of the demand raised by the Department i.e, Rs.28,67,000/- and the assessee has given the details of taxes paid in its petition. The assessee has also enclosed a copy of Form 26AS to evidence the same. 2. On merits of the case, a search was conducted u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) and the assessee was covered under survey u/s. 133A of the Act i.e., assessee’s firm, where he is partner namely M/s. SPP Silks at Erode on 09.05.2013. During the course of search in the residence of one Shri M.K. Yousuf of Coimbatore on 07.02.2013, a pocket diary was seized. This pocket dairy was written by one Smt. Vanitha Mohan of Pricol Group and she confirmed the writings and identified her hand writing. A cross enquiry was conducted with Shri M.K. Yousuf and sworn statement was recorded from him where he admitted to have sold the property to these three petitioners namely Shri Karthikeyan, Shri Umashankar and Shri P. Shanmugasundaram. The assessee has claimed that this property was purchased by the firm and not individuals, whereas the Revenue’s contention is that this property was purchased by these three individuals, because the sale deed was in the name of these three individuals. SP Nos.57 to 59/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: 3. Now, before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the entire consideration is paid out of the firm’s accounts and property is also disclosed in the firm hand. On query from the Bench, the assessee could not produce the balance sheet, but she undertakes at the time of hearing that she will file the balance sheet at the time of hearing of this appeal and may prove their case. On this, the Bench required the assessee to deposit some more tax and she agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in each of the three cases that means in total of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 4. On query from the bench, the Ld. Sr. DR only requesting for payment of more tax. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. Going by the arguments and facts of the case, we are inclined to grant stay, because the assessee has paid 20% of tax and now the Ld. counsel also undertakes to take another installment of Rs.5,00,000/- in each of the three cases. Accordingly, S.P Nos.58 & 59/Chny/2024 arising out of ITA Nos. 1996 & 1997/Chny/2024 are also disposed off. We direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in each of the case by 15th November, 2024. In SP Nos.57 to 59/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: term of the above, the balance demand is stayed and the appeal is already fixed on 6th of November, 2024 will remain the same. 6. In the result, all the three stay petitions filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0003य सद\u0003य सद\u0003य सद\u0003य /Accountant Member (महा वीर िसंह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा \u001f / Vice President चे\u0005ई/Chennai, \u0007दनांक/Dated: 18th October, 2024. EDN/- आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b\tथ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF "