Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
: Department by Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT Assessee by : Mr.G.Baskar, Adv. : 11.01.2018 सुनवाई क+ तार"ख/Date of Hearing : घोषणा क+ तार"ख /Date of 11.01.2018 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, in dated 27.04.2007 for the AY 2002-03.
Shri N.Madhavan, ACIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri G.Baskar, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee. :- 2 -:
It was submitted by the Ld.DR that there was a search on the premises of Shri Jacob George on 15.07.2004. Shri Jacob George was the Managing Director in the Board of Directors of the Company i.e. M/s.Wood Stock Pvt. Ltd. In the course of search, documents were seized which showed that resolution had been signed by Shri Jacob George and his wife in the capacity of the Managing Director & Director authorizing Shri Jacob George to dispose off a property consisting of 3 grounds and 693 sq.ft. owned by the Company in Plot Nos.42 & 43 at Anna Nagar, Chennai. In the course of the statement recorded u/s.132(4), Shri Jacob George had confirmed that the properties were sold to Shri PI Paulson and Shri William Thomas for a sale consideration of Rs.63,23,000/- being Rs.33,00,000/- in respect of the property sold to Shri Paulson and Rs.22,23,000/- in respect of the property sold to Shri William Thomas.
The properties were registered by disclosing only Rs.20.00 lakhs in respect of the property sold to Shri Paulson and Rs.12.00 lakhs in respect of the property sold to Shri William Thomas. It was a submission that the sale of the property was not disclosed in the returns nor Capital Gains tax paid. It was a submission that when the assessee company filed its return as a consequence to this search, the company disclosed the total sale value at Rs.1,00,04,780/- and had offered Long Term Capital Gains Rs.85,72,170/-. As a consequence of return filed, statement had been recorded wherein Shri Jacob George had submitted that there was no documentary evidence with them to confirm the receipt of Rs.1.00 Cr. from Shri Paulson and Shri William Thomas by means of any evidence. :- 3 -:
Only to come with the full discloser and the same was offered and returns filed accordingly. The AO completed the assessment bringing to tax the difference between Rs.1,00,04,780/- and the amount of Rs.63,23,000/- as also an amount of Rs.4,81,000/- shown as unsecured loan received from Mrs.Sonia Paulson. Consequently, the AO had made an addition of Rs.32,00,780/- as the unexplained income of the assessee under the head ‘other sources’. It was a submission that on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had offered Rs.85,72,170/- in respect of the Long Term Capital Gains in the return filed and consequently, the addition of Rs.32,00,780/- was a double addition. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed and that of the AO restored.
In reply, the Ld.AR drew our attention to the last page of the Assessment Order wherein, the computation of income, the AO has accepted the Long Term Capital Gains offered by the assessee in respect of the sale of the property at Anna Nagar at Rs.85,72,170/-. It was a submission that the AO having accepted the Long Term Capital Gains as disclosed by the assessee, there was no further room for making the addition in respect of the sale of Anna Nagar property under the head ‘other sources’ to the extent of Rs.32,00,780/-. He vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). :- 4 -:
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, a perusal of the Assessment Order at last page clearly shows that the AO has accepted the Long Term Capital Gains filed by the assessee at Rs.85,72,170/-, this figure of Long Term Capital Gains is arrived at by taking the sale consideration received by the assessee in respect of the Anna Nagar property sold at Rs.1,00,04,780/-. It is also noticed that the AO has categorically admitted that he has taxed the same as disclosed by the assessee. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that in Para No.3.2, the Ld.CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that the amount of income from other sources of Rs.32,00,780/- worked out by the AO is nothing but part of the total consideration. The AO has made the addition of the same amount twice, although the addition of Rs.32,00,780/- is made on a protective basis. The findings of the Ld.CIT(A) has not been shown wrong or erroneous. In fact, for the purpose of computing Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.85,72,170/-, the sale consideration in respect of the sale of the Anna Nagar property has been taken at Rs.1,00,04,780/-.
Similarly, even for the purpose of making the addition under the head ‘other sources’ at Rs.32,00,780/-, the AO has taken the base as the sale consideration received in respect of the Anna Nagar property at Rs.1,00,04,780/-. In these circumstances, as the AO accepted the Long Term Capital Gains as disclosed by the assessee, the protective addition of Rs.32,00,780/- cannot be made. Consequently, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. :- 5 -:
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on January 11, 2018, at Chennai. (जॉज! माथन) (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) "या$यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER