Smt. Chitra Bhaskaran, CHENNAI v. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1678/CHNY/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 167821714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAEPC8288L
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1678/CHNY/2012
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Chitra Bhaskaran, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 20-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 14-01-2019
First Hearing Date 14-01-2019
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 30-08-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHENNAI . . . ! ' # % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1678/CHNY/2012 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. CHITRA BHASKARAN NO.3 ROYAL GARDEN KESHAVAPERUMALPURAM CHENNAI - 600 028. PAN : AAEPC 8288 L V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) CHENNAI. ( -/ APPELLANT) (./ -/ RESPONDENT) - 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN ADVOCATE FOR SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE ./ - 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 25.10.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI CHENN AI DATED 09.02.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SH. N. DEVANATHAN THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS 2 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 DISALLOWANCE OF 1 CRORE PAID TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE DR.K. CHOCKALINGAM BEING THE CONFIRMING PARTY IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS DR.K. CHOCKALINGAM WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. BY SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 24.12.2001 DR. CHOCKALINGAM SETTLED THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE SMT. CHITRA CHOCKALINGAM AND DR.DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM. AC CORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL SMT. CHITRA CHOCKALINGAM AND DR.DE EPA CHOCKALINGAM EXECUTED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE P ROPERTY AT LUZ CHURCH ROAD MYLAPORE CHENNAI. IN THE SALE DEED DR. CHOCKALINGAM WAS REFERRED AS CONFIRMING PARTY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT A SUM OF 1 CRORE WAS PAID TO DR. CHOCKALINGAM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL UNLESS THE ASSESSEE P AID 1 CRORE THE SALE CANNOT BE COMPLETED. HENCE ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH AFTER THE EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED ON 24.12.2001 BY DR. C HOCKALINGAM IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS DAUGHTER DR. DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM WHAT IS THE TITLE OR RIGHT REMAINS IN FAVOUR OF DR. CHOCKALINGAM FOR PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY? THE LD .COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT BUT FOR THE PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD AT ALL. 3 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 3. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER E XECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED ON 24.12.2001 BY DR. CHOCKALINGAM THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HE HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER OVER THE PROPERTY AT LUZ CHURCH ROAD MYLAPORE CHENNAI. AFTER THE S ETTLEMENT DEED DATED 24.12.2001 THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER EXE CUTED THE SALE DEED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. ON THE DATE OF SALE OF T HE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER DR. CHOCKALINGAM BEING THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD NO TITLE OR RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. IT IS ONLY AN APPLICATION OF INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. BY REFERRING TO TH E NAME OF DR. CHOCKALINGAM AS CONFIRMING PARTY THE ASSESSEE IS M AKING AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE ACC ORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DR. CHOCKALINGAM WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNE R OF THE PROPERTY. ON 24.12.2001 DR. CHOCKALINGAM EXECUTED A SETTLEMENT 4 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 DEED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT LUZ CHURCH ROAD MYLAPORE CHENNAI IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AND HIS DAUGHTER DR.DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM. THEREFORE BY VIRTUE OF SET TLEMENT DEED DATED 24.12.2001 THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER BEC AME THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 5. ON EXECUTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER DR.DEEPA CHOCKALINGAM DR. CHOCKAL INGAM HAS NO RIGHT OR TITLE WHATSOEVER OVER THE PROPERTY. DR . CHOCKALINGAM HAPPENED TO BE THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS THAT BUT FOR THE PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE SOLD. THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT OF 1 CRORE TO DR. CHOCKALINGAM IS ONLY APPLICATION OF INCOME. HAVING NO RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY ON THE D ATE OF SALE DR. CHOCKALINGAM NEED NOT BE A CONFIRMING PARTY FOR SAL E OF THE PROPERTY. BY REFERRING HIM AS CONFIRMING PARTY IN THE SALE DEED THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE 5 I.T.A. NO.1678/CHNY/12 ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI 7 /DATED THE 20 TH NOVEMBER 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. - /APPELLANT 2. ./ - /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-VI CHENNAI 4. 2 ;3 /CIT-IV CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.