Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Chennai, dated 29.02.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.
Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is a co-owner of a property along with Smt. B.
Susheela. Both the assessee and Smt. B. Susheela had executed a power of attorney in favour of M/s Jayaswathy Construction Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Shri K.G. Janakiraman for sale of the land. In fact, the said Janakiraman sold the land for a sum of `60 lakhs. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee offered the sale proceeds for capital gain taxation. The Assessing Officer, however, said to have obtained an affidavit and sale receipt on 22.03.2013 from Shri Janakiraman and on the basis of that so- called sale receipt, determined the sale consideration at `1,12,00,000/- and the share of the assessee was determined at `56,00,000/-. According to the Ld. counsel, the so-called affidavit and sale receipt was not brought to the notice of the assessee, Even a copy of the affidavit was not furnished to the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not comment upon the so-called affidavit and sale receipt. Therefore, the Ld. counsel submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain the real facts before the Assessing Officer after considering the so-called affidavit of sale receipt. According to the Ld. counsel, the affidavit and so-called sale receipt is not signed either by the assessee or Smt. Susheela and there is likelihood of forging the document by Shri Janakiraman. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
On the contrary, Shri V. Nandakumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the affidavit and sale receipt was signed by both the assessee and Smt. Susheela. The Ld. D.R. also filed copy of the same before this Tribunal. In view of this sale receipt which discloses the sale consideration of `1,12,00,000/-, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. We have carefully gone through the so-called affidavit and sale receipt, a copy of which is filed by the Ld. D.R. The copy of the affidavit does not contain any date on which it was signed. Even paragraph 6 was left blank. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall furnish a copy of the so-called affidavit and sale receipt to the assessee and thereafter, decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 at Chennai.