Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:
the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Chennai, passed & 1336/Mds/2017 ITA No.1337/Mds/2017
:- 2 -: u/s.263 in C.No.2744/C-2/2015-16/5 dated 29.03.2017 for the AY 2012- Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Chennai, passed u/s.263 in C.No.2744/C-2/2015-16/4 dated 29.03.2017 for the AY 2013- Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Chennai, passed u/s.263 in C.No.2744/C-2/2015-16/3 dated 29.03.2017 for the AY 2012- 13.
Mrs.Ruby George, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.
As the three appeals are inter-connected, common and the same are disposed of by this common order. & 1337/Mds/2017 for the AY 2012-13:
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that there was a search conducted on the premises of assessee on 19.03.2013. As a consequence of search, the AO has completed the assessment u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3). It was a submission that in the course of the search, statements had been recorded u/s.132(4) wherein the assessee had admitted on-money payment to an extent of Rs.4.70 Crs. in respect of the purchase of two & 1336/Mds/2017 ITA No.1337/Mds/2017
:- 3 -: properties one measuring 9 cents of land at 100 Feet Road belonging to CSI Church, Coimbatore and the second one measuring 6 cents of land purchased from Shri Albert D’silva at 100 feet Road, Coimbatore. It was a submission that the on-money transaction represented Rs.4.10 Crs. paid in respect of 9 cents of land and Rs.60.00 lakhs paid in respect of 6 cents of land. It was a submission that on-money payments were relating to two assessment years being 2012-13 & 2013-14. However, in the course of statement recorded, the assessee had agreed to offer the on-money payment as his income and paid taxes for the AY 2013-14. It was a submission that the assessees had consequently filed their return of income for the AY 2013-14 disclosing the said on-money payments showing Rs.2.60 Crs. each under the head income from other sources when filing their return for the AY 2013-14. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the statement of total income filed for the AY 2013-14 along with the Schedule-7 there under wherein Rs.2.05 lakhs has been shown in respect of the property at 10th Street, Coimbatore and Rs.30.00 lakhs each in respect of the property at 100 Feet Road, Coimbatore and an additional Rs.25.00 lakhs. It was a submission that though this was brought to the attention of the Ld.CIT in response to the show cause notice u/s.263, the Ld.CIT did not consider the same and directed the AO to re-do the assessment for the AY 2012-13 in respect of the two investments in the said two properties. It was a submission that the assessee had no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the CIT for re-verification. & 1336/Mds/2017 ITA No.1337/Mds/2017
:- 4 -:
4.1 In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT passed u/s.263.
4.2 We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the return of income for the AY 2013-14 clearly shows that both the assessees have disclosed Rs.2.60 Crs. under the head income from other sources and the same has also been tallied with Schedule-7 identifying the unexplained investment in respect of the two specific properties. However, a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT passed u/s.263 shows that the Ld.CIT has stated that there is an absence of satisfactory Explanation from the assessee regarding the source of investment of such amount. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate their case. The assessee shall produce all such evidences to show that the investments in the said two properties represent the on-money transactions have been offered to tax as admitted in the statement recorded u/s.132(4). In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.1336/Mds/2017 for the AY 2013-14:
It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the issue in this appeal related to the action of the Ld.CIT in respect of the claim of exemption u/s.54 in & 1336/Mds/2017 ITA No.1337/Mds/2017
:- 5 -: respect of sale of property at Maniam Kaliappa Street and the property at Flower Market and the purchase of the properties at 100 Feet Road, Coimbatore and 6 cents of land from Shri Albert D’Silva. It was a submission that the same had already been considered by the AO while computing the assessment for the AY 2013-14. It was a submission that however, the assessee had no objection if the issues are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT for re-adjudication. It was a submission that the purchased documents as well as the sale documents had already been produced before the Ld.CIT.
5.1 In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT.
5.2 We have considered the rival submissions. Though, it has been submitted by the Ld.AR that all the details in respect of the purchase and the sale of properties and also the claim of exemption u/s.54 had been produced before the Ld.CIT, it is noticed that the Ld.CIT has recorded that the assessee has not been able to furnish the details of such purchase and sale of the said properties. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case. & 1336/Mds/2017 ITA No.1337/Mds/2017
:- 6 -: 5.3 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.