Smt. P.Leelavathy, Tiruppur v. ACIT, Tiruppur

ITA 1735/CHNY/2005 | 1992-1993
Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 173521714 RSA 2005
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1735/CHNY/2005
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Smt. P.Leelavathy, Tiruppur
Respondent ACIT, Tiruppur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 25-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-02-2011
Assessment Year 1992-1993
Appeal Filed On 29-07-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 1735/MDS/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1992-93 MRS. P. LEELAVATHI L/H OF LATE SMT. THAYAMMAL # 24-25 I STREET MURUGAPALAYAM TIRUPPUR-641602. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-I TIRUPPUR. (PAN/GIR NO.: T-701 ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. RAVI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN JR. STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II COIMBATORE IN I.T.APPEAL NO. 106-C /03-04 DATED 29-04-2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. 2. SHRI K. RAVI ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION T HAT THE ASSESSEE LATE SMT. THAYAMMAL WHO IS REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR SMT. P. LEELAVATHI WAS THE OWNER OF 4.11 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT NO.15 KUMAR NAGAR AREA NO. 14 THOTTIPALAYAM VILLAGE S.F.NO.111. IT WAS THE SUBM ISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR A DMITTING AN INCOME OF ` 5 91 927/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 10 000/- ON 2-12-1992. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 2-12-1992. THE AS SESSEE IS SURVIVED BY HER SON SHRI V. PALANISAMY DAUGHTERIN LAW SMT. P. LEE LAVATHI AND GRAND DAUGHTER UMA KRITHIKA. THE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT. P. LEELAVAT HI BEING THE MAJOR BENEFICIARY UNDER THE WILL WAS ALSO TREATED AS THE LEGAL HEIR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAID 4.11 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO ONE SHRI NALIN B. TRIVEDI OF MUMBAI ON 10-02-1992 A ND HAD DISCLOSED THE CONSIDERATION OF ` 1 49 29 500/-. THE SALE WAS EFFECTED THROUGH TWO BROKERS NAMELY SHRI M. JAGANATHAN AND SHRI V. GURUSAMY. SH RI V. GURUSAMY WAS SAID TO BE A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SU BMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENT OF ` 1 49 29 500/- BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24-9- 1992 AND 25-9-1992. SIMILAR ACTION WAS ALSO DONE O N THE PREMISES OF SHRI M. JAGANATHAN ON THE SAME DAYS. THE PREMISES OF SHRI NALIN B. TRIVEDI WAS ALSO SEARCHED ON 14.10.1992. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SE ARCH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 3 WERE FOUND WHICH SHOWED THAT THE SAID SHRI NALIN B. TRIVEDI HAD PURCHASED THE 4.11 ACRES OF LAND FOR ` 2 04 00 000/-. STATEMENTS HAD BEEN RECORDED FROM ALL THE CONCERNED PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD H ELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ONLY HAVING RECEIVED ` 1 49 29 500/- THE BALANCE OF ` 51 50 000/- WAS THE ON MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS OPPORTUN ITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL WERE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD GIVEN OPP ORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE CROSS EXAMINATION THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BE EN PAID ONLY ` 1 49 29 500/- BY DEMAND DRAFTS AND THE BALANCE OF ` 51 50 000/- WAS GIVEN TO THE BROKER SHRI M. JAGANATHAN IN CASH. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSIO N THAT THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI M. JAGANATHAN AND SHRI V. GURUSAMY COMPLETELY CONTR ADICTED EACH OTHER AT VARIOUS POINTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NOBODY HAS EVER ADMITTED THAT THE ON MONEY OF ` 51 50 000/- HAD BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS NO EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN PAI D ANY ON MONEY WAS FOUND THE ADDITION OF ` 51 50 000/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A S CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMIS SION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CATEGORICALLY VE RIFIED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF 93 ACRES OF LAND AT I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 4 NACHIPALAYAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1 24 95 025/- AND FOR THIS PURPOSE AN AMOUNT OF ` 45 LAKHS WAS PAID IN FEBRUARY 1992. IT WAS THE S UBMISSION THAT WHEN THIS AMOUNT OF ` 45 LAKHS WAS PAID THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VE RY MUCH LOCKED UP IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND BANK DEPOSITS AND NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN SHOWN TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF ` 45 LAKHS PAID IN CASH IN FEBRUARY 1992 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT ON MONEY HAD BEEN PAID TO THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS FOUND IN TH E COURSE OF SEARCH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 4.11 ACRES OF LAND WAS ` 2 04 00 000/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN THOUGH SHRI V. PALANIS AMY HAS STATED THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT OF SMT. P. LEELAVATHI AS A WITNESS WAS NOT THE SIGNATURE OF SMT. P. LEELAVATHI WHEN THE SAME WAS C OMPARED WITH THAT AS FOUND IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SMT. P. LEELAV ATHI IT WAS IDENTICAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT T HE OUTSET WHAT IS EVIDENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI M. JAGANATHAN HAS BEEN FOUND WHIC H IS ENTERED INTO ON 3.6.1991 WHEREIN THE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SPECIFI CALLY MENTIONED AT ` 2 04 00 000/-. THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN FOUND AT TH E PREMISES OF SHRI M. JAGANATHAN. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE PREMISE S OF SHRI NALIN B. TRIVEDI AN I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 5 AGREEMENT HAS BEEN FOUND BETWEEN HIM AND SHRI M. JA GANATHAN DATED 16-08- 1991 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 2 26 80 000/-. IN THE SAID AGREEMENT THE BROKERAG E DUE TO SHRI M. JAGANATHAN OF ` 26 LAKHS WAS SHOWN. SHRI NALIN B. TRIVEDI HAS ALS O CAPITALIZED THE FULL CONSIDERATION OF ` 2 43 00 000/- WHICH INCLUDED REGISTRATION AND STAM P DUTY. THUS THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE PU RCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI NALIN B. TRIVEDI IS ` 2 43 00 000/- OUT OF WHICH ` 2 26 80 000/- IS THE CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE SELLER AND THE BROKER . THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI M. JAGANATHAN THE BROKER AND THE ASSESSEE FOR ` 2 04 00 000/- HAS NOT BEEN DISLODGED. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASE D 93 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN NACHIPALAYAM AND THE EVIDENCE OF HAVING PAI D AN AMOUNT OF ` 45 LAKHS BY CASH AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ALSO STANDS UNDI SPUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW FROM WHERE THIS AMOUNT OF ` 45 LAKHS WHICH WAS REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT OF THE ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF 93 A CRES OF LAND AT NACHIPALAYAM WAS SOURCED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY HER FOR THE SALE OF 4.11 ACRES WAS LOCKED UP IN DEPOSITS. THIS DOCUMENT OF SHOWING THE INVESTMENT OF ` 45 LAKHS AND THE ENTRIES AS WELL AS THE PAYMENT DET AILS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHRI V. PALANISAMY WHO IS THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE HUSBAND OF SMT. P. LEELAVATHI THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ST ATEMENTS OF SHRI M. JAGANATHAN AND SHRI V. GURUSAMY ALSO CLEARLY SHOW THAT CONSIDE RATION HAS FLOWED FROM SHRI M. JAGANATHAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT IN THE STAT EMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI M. I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 6 JAGANATHAN ON 24.9.1992HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED ` 26 LAKHS AS BROKERAGE. FURTHER AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED F ROM SHRI V. PALANISAMY ON 25.9.1992 SHRI PALANISAMY HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTE D THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED ` 2 CRORES AND THE BALANCE OF ` 4 LAKHS WAS GIVEN AS COMMISSION TO THE BROKERS. THIS AMOUNT ALSO STANDS CORROBORATED BY THE REPLY T O THE QUESTION NO.4 OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI V. PALANISAMY RECORDED ON 25.9.19 92 EXPLAINING THE DEPOSIT OF ` 2 00 76 856/-. INTERESTINGLY IN THE STATEMENT RE CORDED ON 11.11.1992 SHRI V. PALANISAMY DOES A VOLTE FACE TO SAY THAT NO AGREEME NT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY THIRD PARTY AND THAT THE SALE AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF ` 2 04 00 000/- WAS FALSE AND INCORRECT AND THE SIGNA TURE IN THE AGREEMENT IS NOT OF HIS WIFES SIGNATURE. WE MAY STATE THAT FROM TH E STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SMT. P. LEELAVATHI ON 11.11.1992 SMT. P. LEELVATHI HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE ATTESTING SIGNATURE WAS HERS. THUS WHAT IS EVIDENC E IS THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ALL AG REED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE 4.11 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND WAS FOR ` 2 04 00 000/- AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ` 2 CRORES AS SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE BALANCE ` 4 LAKHS WAS PAID AS BROKERAGE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE S EARCH AFTER ABOUT ONE AND HALF TO TWO MONTHS AS ALSO IN THE CROSS EXAMINATION THINGS HAVE CHANGED. THERE IS NO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CHILDREN OF THE SELLER THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS FOR ` 2 04 00 000/- AND THE FIGURES HAVE NOW COME DOWN T O THE REGISTERED VALUE OF I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 7 ` 1 49 00 000/-. HOWEVER THE PURCHASER HAS MAINTAI NED THE CONSTANT FIGURE AS HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED IN HIS ACCOUNTS. 6. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IF ANY DOCUMENT IS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE I T IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SUCH DOCUMENT. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE AND SHRI M. JAGANNATHAN IS NOT CLAIMED TO BE A FALSE DOCUMENT. THE SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SAID DOCUMENT IS ` 2 04 00 000/-. THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ALSO CLEARLY SHOW AN AMOUNT OF ` 2 00 76 856/-. THE SOURCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN ` 1 49 29 500/- AND ` 2 00 76 856/- HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE. IN FACT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 25.9.1992 FRO M SHRI V. PALANISAMY HE HAS OFFERED THIS AMOUNT OF ` 49 97 356/- AS INCOME AND HAS AGREED TO PAY THE TA X THEREON. THIS SUPPORTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE AMOUNT OF ` 45 LAKHS CASH WHICH WAS PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF T HE 93 ACRES OF LAND AT NACHIPALAYAM AND THAT ON MONEY TRANSACTI ON HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO EXPLAIN OR REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 26 OF HIS ORDER AS ALSO THE PARA 3.2(IV)(A) (B) AND (C) OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES N OT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN I.T.A. NO.1735/MDS/2005 8 THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 7. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25/02/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 25 TH FEBRUARY 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE