SUKKARAN KALAISELVI,SALEM V. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

ITA 358/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sukkaran Kalaiselvi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the difference between the guideline value and the sale consideration of a property. The property was purchased by Sukkaran Kalaiselvi and three others for a registered value of \\u20b98,25,000/-, while the stamp valuation authority fixed the value at \\u20b915,30,250/-. The Assessing Officer added the entire difference of \\u20b97,05,250/- to the income of Sukkaran Kalaiselvi, which was contested in the appeal. The Tribunal found that the addition should have been proportionate to the shareholding in the property, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713096 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN; F
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sukkaran Kalaiselvi, Old No. 160/2, Ariyur St., Pethanaickenpalayam PO, Attur TK, Salem District - 636 109. [PAN:GLJPK7754R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 34 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.358/Chny/25 2 prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made on account of entire difference between guideline value and sale consideration of the property. 4. We note that the assessee derives income out of milk vending activity. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] determining total income of the assessee at ₹.10,28,990/- as against the returned income of ₹.3,23,740/-. The said difference between reassessed income and returned income represents the entire difference in the value of the property of guideline value and sale deed value. We note that as pointed out by the ld. AR that the property was purchased by the assessee and three others for a registered value of ₹.8,25,000/- for which stamp valuation authority fixed the value at ₹.15,30,250/-. The said difference of ₹.7,05,250/- [15,30,250 – 8,25,000] was added in the hands of the assessee is not justified. We note that the Assessing Officer himself recorded the same in the assessment order that the said property was purchased in the name of 4 persons namely, Sukkaran Kalaiselvi Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.358/Chny/25 3 (assessee), P. Sukaran (assessee’s husband), S. Thanigairajan (assessee’s son) and R. Sadayan (3rd party). The vehement contention of the ld. AR is that the Assessing Officer is not justified in assessing the entire difference in the hands of the assessee without stating plausible reason. We note that, all four persons have joined as parties in the sale deed clearly shows each of them is holding ¼ share in the property, which clearly establishes that they have contributed the sale consideration equally. The Assessing Officer did not bring on record any material evidence to demonstrate that the entire sale consideration was contributed solely by the assessee and no amount has come from other three parties. Further, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer, on finding the difference between the registered value and guideline of the property should have referred to the Valuation Cell of the IT Department and we find no such observations in the assessment order or in the impugned order. We note that the ld. AR placed on record copy of the sale deed in Tamil vernacular language and true translation as enclosures. On examination of the true translation, the fact remains admitted that the sale consideration of ₹.8,25,000/- was transferred to the vendor through RTGS transaction, which is acknowledged by the vendor in page 4 of the English true translation. The contention of the ld. AR is that there is no admission in the sale deed that the contribution was made by the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.358/Chny/25 4 assessee solely towards sale consideration is correct, as all parties contributed to the sale consideration. Admittedly, the said statement showing the sale consideration was contributed equally and reflecting in the sale deed. Therefore, we can safely conclude that all four parties are equal share holders in the said property. If that is so, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR that the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be made in the hands of one of the share holders, but, except to an extent of ¼ share of addition. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified and accordingly, we delete the addition to an extent of ₹.5,28,937/- [3/4 of addition] and sustain the addition of ₹.1,76,313/- being one fourth of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 28th July, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 28.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.358/Chny/25 5 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "