Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ’सी’ �यायपीठ, चे�नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI �ी जॉज� माथन, �या�यक सद य एवं �ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद�य के सम! BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2275/Mds/2016 �नधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Zainee Razana, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 20/21, Casamajor Road, International Taxation-2(2), No.7 (Old No.3), Zarrat Garden, Chennai. 2nd Avenue, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [PAN: AAAPZ 1861 C] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'यथ%/Respondent) : अपीलाथ% क( ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. &'यथ% क( ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT सुनवाई क( तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 घोषणा क( तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, in dated 17.06.2016 for the AY 2012-13.
Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. represented on behalf of the assessee.
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is an individual who had sold a vacant land at 115, Khajara Garden, Neelankarai, on ITA No.2275/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:
31.03.2010, for a sum of Rs.2,95,92,063/-. The assessee had also filed a return of income for the AY 2010-11 disclosing the sale consideration and having shown a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.2,89,20,360/- and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act. It was a submission that the property had been sold by the assessee through a power of attorney in the name of one Shri A.Ravikumar, residing at 61, Gajapathy Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. The said property was sold to Tmt. Kannammal Educational Trust. It was a submission that the purchaser of the said land had got the property registered on 30.11.2011 and consequently, the AO had brought to tax the Long Term Capital Gain arising on the sale of the said land for the AY 2012-13. It was a submission that the AO had obtained information u/s.133(6) from the purchaser of the said land who confirmed that the agreement of the sale entered into in January, 2010 with the assessee and the Sale Deed was executed in November, 2011 and the possession of the property had been taken in December, 2011.
It was a submission that the sellers have also recognized the power of attorney holder, Shri A. Ravikumar. It was a submission that in the said letter the purchaser had also confirmed that the consideration of Rs.2,95,92,063/- had been paid by cheque in January, 2010 itself. It was a submission that the assessee had received the sale consideration in January, 2010 and had handed over the possession of the said property to Shri A. Ravikumar, immediately, thereafter. It was a submission that for the reasons best known to the purchaser, the Sale Deed was registered only in November, 2011. It was a submission that the assessee has ITA No.2275/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: offered the Long Term Capital Gain during the AY 2010-11 and no assessment on the same has been done. It was a submission that the assessment of the Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 was, in fact, a double assessment and it was also a submission that the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.54F has not been examined by the AO during the AY 2012-13. It was a submission that he had no objection, if the issue was restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication and to verify as to whether the assessee has handed over the possession of the said land by examining Shri A. Ravikumar, the power of attorney holder. It was a submission that the receipt of the sale consideration in January, 2010 is not disputed.
In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).
It was a submission that the possession of the property has been taken by the purchaser only in December, 2011 as has been brought out in his Assessment Order at Page Nos.4 in Para No.4.3 and consequently, the capital gains was assessable only during the AY 2012-13.
We have considered the rival submissions. The fact that there is a power of attorney holder in the said transaction between the assessee and the purchaser of the said land and the same is evidenced by the individual Shri A. Ravikumar has been recognized both by the assessee in her power
ITA No.2275/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: of attorney and by the purchaser in their letter to the AO u/s.133(6) of the Act. Admittedly, Shri A. Ravikumar, has not been examined. The letter of the purchaser also clearly shows that Shri A. Ravikumar has acted as a power of attorney holder of the assessee for the purpose of Sale Deed and registration. The purchaser in her letter also confirms that the possession of the property was taken in December, 2011. A perusal of the power of attorney has shown at Page Nos.1 to 8 of the Paper Book in Clause-12 shows that the possession has been given to the power of attorney holder to hand over the possession on behalf of the assessee. Further, the assessee has also specifically stated that the capital gains has been offered by the assesse during the AY 2010-11 being the Assessment Year in which the assessee has received the sale consideration and has handed over the possession of the property to the power of attorney holder, Shri A. Ravikumar. The present assessment is being done by the AO only on the ground that the registration of the Sale Deed has been done during the relevant Assessment Year and the possession has been handed over by the power of attorney holder to the purchasers during the relevant Assessment Year. The Assessment Order does not speak anything about the Long Term Capital Gain being offered by the assesse for the AY 2010- 11 or in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. This being so, in the interest of the natural justice, the issues in the assessee’s appeal are restored to the file of the AO for de-novo adjudication and verification as to the Assessment Year in which the Long Term Capital Gain is liable to be assessed. The AO is to examine whether the assessee
ITA No.2275/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: has offered Long Term Capital Gain in respect of the sale of the said property during the AY 2010-11 and has claimed the benefit of deduction u/s.54F therein. The AO is also to determine as to whether the Long Term Capital Gain is liable to be assessable during the AY 2010-11 or AY 2012- 13 in view of the provisions of Sec.2(47) of the Act as well as Sec.53A of Transfer of Property Act. If the AO is of the view that the Long Term Capital Gain is liable to be assessed during the AY 2012-13 itself, then the AO is also to examine the claim of deduction u/s.54F as has allegedly been claimed when filing the return for the AY 2010-11 by the assessee.
Consequently, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the for de-novo adjudication as specified above.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on January 17, 2018, at Chennai.