Smt. Savita S. Pai, Mangalore v. ITO, Mangalore

ITA 1177/BANG/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 117721114 RSA 2009
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 1177/BANG/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Savita S. Pai, Mangalore
Respondent ITO, Mangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 26-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 23-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 23-02-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 14-12-2009
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 5 ITA NO.1177 BANG/2009 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B' BEFORE DR. O K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. J.M. ITA NO.1177/BANG/2009 (ASST. YEAR 2006-07) SMT. SAVITA S PAI #302 DEEP PARADISE BENDOREWELL ROAD BALMATTA MANGALORE-2. - APPELLANT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1) MANGALORE. - RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S VENKATESAN C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. V S SREELEKHA D.R. O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MANGALORE DATED 6.11.2009. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED IS 2006-07. 2. GROUND NO.1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NO.3 IS CONSEQUE NTIAL AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. REMAINING EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS NAMELY 2.1 TO 2.3 THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS WHETHE R THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE OF PIECE OF LAND IS RS.58 50 000/- OR RS.27 00 000/-. PAGE 2 OF 5 ITA NO.1177 BANG/2009 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE CONCERNED YEAR WAS FILED DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF RS.28 939/-. ASSESSMENT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY PURSUANT TO AN INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT (INV.) MA NGALORE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY OF 23.37 CENT S AND CONSIDERATION OF RS.58 50 000/- WAS NOT FULLY DISCL OSED IN THE RETURN. THE ADIT (INV.) HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY OTHER THAN THE REGISTERED VALUE OF RS.27 LAKHS. SHE REITERATE D WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE ADIT (INV.) THAT THE AGREEME NT OF SALE WAS PREPARED SHOWING CONSIDERATION OF RS.58 50 000/ - TO FACILITATE SHRI HAMEED (THE PURCHASER OF IMPUGNED P ROPERTY) TO AVAIL LOAN FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND SHE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO BUY A NEW HOUSE AS SHE WAS STAYING IN A RENTED HOUSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ADDING THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.31 50 000/- (RS.58 50 000-RS.27 00 000/-) AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 4. AGGRIEVED ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE PURELY ON SUSPI CION AND SURMISES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF FERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNREASONABLY REJECTED AND THE PURCHASE R WAS NOT PAGE 3 OF 5 ITA NO.1177 BANG/2009 3 EXAMINED TO TEST THE VERACITY OF TRUTHFUL EXPLANATI ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.31 50 000/- UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THE ADDITIONAL RECEIPT IF ANY IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.58 50 000/- INSTEAD OF RS.27 00 000/- DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER HE ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ADDITIONAL RECEIPTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FR OM 'CAPITAL GAINS' AND NOT AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 28 PAGES AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SA ME ARE CERTIFIED AS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. PER CONTRA THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT TALLY WITH THE MARKET VALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. TH E SALE AGREEMENT AND THE VALUATION REPORT ARE VALID EVIDEN CES RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI HA MEED THE PAGE 4 OF 5 ITA NO.1177 BANG/2009 4 PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE VALUATION REPORT THE REGISTERED VALUER HAD ADOPTED RS.2.5 LAKHS AND ARRIVED AT RS.5 8 42 500/- AS THE ACTUAL MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE SALE CONSI DERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORROBORATED BY THE SAL E AGREEMENT AND THE VALUATION REPORT. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITI ON THAT THE ASST. DIRECTOR (INV.) EXAMINED THE DOCUMENT SUBMITT ED TO THE CANARA BANK VALENCIA BRANCH MANGALORE AND FOUND T HAT THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK FOR AV AILING THE LOAN. THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND SHRI HAMEED IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S MANGALORE CONSTRUCTIONS. A STATEMENT IS RE CORDED FROM HIM ON 1ST AUGUST 2007 (WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 18 TO 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE). O N PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI HAMEED WE NOTICED THAT HE HA S PURCHASED NUMBER OF OTHER PROPERTIES. WE FIND LIKE IN THE I NSTANT CASE THERE IS VAST DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF PROPERTY SHOWN IN AGREEMENT OF SALE AND IN THE SALE DEED. THE ADI (INV.) WHIL E EXAMINING CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS WITH WHOM SHRI HAMEED HAD EXE CUTED SIMILAR AGREEMENTS HAD CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD ACT UALLY PAID THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENTS AND NOT THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. THESE F ACTS ONLY POINT THAT THE CHARTERED ENGINEER AND REGISTERED VA LUER'S REPORT WHICH SHOWS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y AT RS.58 50 000/- IS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ADOPTION OF THE FIGURE MENTIONE D IN THE SALE PAGE 5 OF 5 ITA NO.1177 BANG/2009 5 AGREEMENT CANNOT BE STATED TO BE BASED ON MERE SUSP ICION OR SURMISE OR CONJECTURE. 10. FOR THE ABOVE STATED REASONS WE ARE OF THE VI EW THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 26TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (DR. O K NARAYANAN) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE DTD.26/2/2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2.THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT (A) CONCERNED.4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR 6. GUAR D FILE. 7. GF ITAT NEW DELHI. MSP/25.2. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.