K.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore v. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 2208/CHNY/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2013 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 220821714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ABGPV6158B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 2208/CHNY/2012
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant K.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore
Respondent ITO, Coimbatore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 21-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 07-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 07-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 07-12-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NO. 2208/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. K.VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY 9/18 V.C.S NAGAR II STREET GNANAMBIKA MILLS P.O COIMBATORE 641 029 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD II(2) COIMBATORE [PAN ABGPV 6158 B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. RAGHU CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.BETGIRI JT.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 07-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-10-2013 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I COIMBATORE DATED 19.10.2012 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.369/2011-12 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 2 -: 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE REFERS TO T HE GROUNDS PLEADED IN THE APPEAL AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF ` 69 69 362/- IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE OTHER ONE PERTAINING TO INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF ` 19 90 138/-. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE AFORESAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS NOT ASSESSABL E IN HER HANDS AND ALSO THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY APPLIE D SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN HER CASE. COMING TO THE OTHER ADDITION SHE SUBMITS THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HER FATHER (A N AGRICULTURIST) STILL HER EXPLANATION HAS BEEN WRONGLY REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). IN THIS MANNER SHE PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE STRONGLY RELIES ON THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) CONFIRMING BOTH ADDITIONS IN ASSESSEES HANDS AND PRESSES FOR CONFIRMATION THEREOF. QUA THE ARGUMENT PERTAINING T O APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C IT QUOTES CASE LAW OF [2013] 31 TAXMAN N.COM 39 (CAL) BAGRI IMPEX (P) LTD VS ACIT AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR SHE HAD FILED HER RETURN ON 25.1.2010 DISCLOS ING INCOME OF ` I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 3 -: 3 82 975/-. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A COMMERCIAL PROPE RTY ON 11.9.2008 (IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEAR) FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 65 LAKHS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION IN HER RETU RN. DURING THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHE DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE TRANSACTION O F ` 5 30 862/- BY TAKING THE CONSIDERATION AS ` 65 LAKHS. 5. IT IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO PUT THE ASSESSEE ON NOTICE QUA APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY STOOD AT ` 1 34 20 950/-. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ON 10.9. 2006 SHE HAD EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY WITH ONE SHRI K.K.ABBAS FOR ` 65 LAKHS. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT S HE STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED ON 26.8.2006 21.8.2006 11.9.2006 2 0.3 2007 19.6.2007 7.7.2007 21.2.2008 AND 14.7.2008 SUMS OF ` 10 LAKHS ` 10 LAKHS ` 10 LAKHS ` 10 LAKHS ` 5 LAKHS ` 10 LAKHS ` 5 LAKHS AND ` 5 LAKHS; RESPECTIVELY TOTALING TO ` 65 LAKHS. QUA APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C HER CONTENTION WAS THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED HA D REFLECTED THE ACTUAL VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. ON THIS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 4 -: REFERRED THE ISSUE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER SO AS T O ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WHICH CAME TO BE ` 1 29 38 500/-. 6. WE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.201 1 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT AFTER 10.9.2006 AGREEMENT SHE HAD EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEYS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI K.K.ABBAS ON 21.2.2008 AND 14.7.2008 . ACCORDINGLY HER PLEA WAS THAT SINCE SHE HAD ALREADY TRANSFERRED HER TITLE AND INTEREST WELL BEFORE THE EXECUTION OF REGISTERED SA LE DEED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI K.K.ABBAS THE CAPITAL GAINS IN QUESTION COULD NOT HAVE ARISEN IN HER HANDS. THE SAME FAILED TO IMPRESS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHO WAS OF THE OPINION INTER ALIA THAT THE BASIC INGR EDIENTS OF A TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(27) OF THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY HER AS HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION WAS NOWHERE FORTH COMING. ACCORDINGLY HE HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS IN QUES TION HAD TO BE TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF SHRI K.K.A BBAS. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES SUB MISSIONS AFORESAID AND HELD THAT THERE WERE MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS IN VARIOUS STANDS ADOPTED IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS QUA THE SALE AGREEMENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEYS. ACCORDINGLY HE COMPUTED C APITAL GAINS IN I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 5 -: QUESTION AT ` ` 69 69 362/- AND HAD MADE ADDITION IN THE TOTAL INCO ME. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED HER FIRST ARGU MENT CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN HER HANDS AFTER INVOKING SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE REL EVANT FINDINGS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN GONE THROUGH WHICH COMPRISES OF ASSESSEES AGREEMENT TO SELL DA TED 10.9.2006 HER POWER OF ATTORNEYS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI K.K.A BBAS DATED 21.2.2008 AND 14.7.2008 RESPECTIVELY AND THE SALE D EED DATED 11.9.2008(SUPRA). A PERUSAL THEREOF MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOWHERE TRANSFERRED POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF SHRI K.K.ABBAS WHO IN TURN HAD NOT AC TED AS A TITLE HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SALE TRANSACTION BUT AS A PO WER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. THIS IN OUR VIEW HAS NOT CONFERRED A T ITLE IN FAVOUR OF THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. WE QUOTE THE RELEVANT PROVI SION IN THE ACT I.E SECTION 2(47)(V) WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2( 47 ) ['TRANSFER' IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET INCLUDES . I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 6 -: (V)ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN P ART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 (4 OF 1882) ; OR IN VIEW THEREOF WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PROVE HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVO UR OF SHRI K.K.ABBAS AFORESAID BY WAY OF AGREEMENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HER CONTENTION THAT SHE WAS NO MORE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. ACCORDINGLY THE SAID A RGUMENT STANDS REJECTED. 8. THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY APPLIED SECTION 50C OF THE ACT Q UA THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. SHE HAD CONTENDED IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SINCE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 21.2.2008(IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR)AND 14.7.2008 AND THE SAL E DEED IS DATED 11.9.2008 THE SAID PROVISION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9. WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS ARGUMENT AS WELL IN DETAIL. AT THE COST OF REPETITION WE RE-NARRATE THE FACTS IN BRIE F. THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION WAS EXECUTED ON 10.9.2006. ON 21.2.2008 A ND 14.7.2008 THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEYS. ON 11.9 .2008 THE SALE I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 7 -: DEED IN QUESTION STOOD EXECUTED. IN THESE FACTS T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 21.2.2008 I.E IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 WHICH AMOUNTED TO TRANSFERRING THE TITLE SECTIO N 50C HAD BEEN WRONGLY APPLIED. PROCEEDING ON THIS WE HOLD THAT S O FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SHE HAD TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF POWER OF ATTORNEYS THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN PRECE DING PARAGRAPHS GO AGAINST HER. FURTHER MORE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE TH AT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECL ARED ANY CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM ALLEGED TRANSFER TO SHRI ABBAS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE OBSERVE THAT SECTION 50C HAS BEEN RIGHTLY INVOKED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E THE YEAR OF REG ISTERED SALE DEED. IN SUPPORT WE QUOTE THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE REV ENUE (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 4. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. THE LEARNED TRIBUN AL REVERSED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ONCE AGAIN COME U P BEFORE THIS COURT. THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW HAS BEEN ADVAN CED: 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE WORDS 'OR ASSESSABLE' WAS INTRODUCED IN SECTION 50C (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST OCTOBER 2009 AND THUS ERRED IN TAKING THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON 27TH NOVEMBER 2007 INSTEAD OF ACTUAL TRANSFER PRICE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07?' I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 8 -: 5. MR. BHARATDWAJ LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLA NT SUBMITTED THAT THE WORD 'TRANSFER' IN RELATION TO CAPITAL ASSETS HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS : 'TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET I NCLUDES - (I) THE SALE EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE AS SET: OR (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR (III) THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW; OR (IV) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSET IS CONVERTED BY THE OWNER THEREOF INTO OR IS TREATED BY HIM AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OF A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM SUCH CONVERSION OR TREATMENT; OR (IVA)THE MATURITY OR REDEMPTION OF A ZERO COUPON BO ND; OR (V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 (4 OF 188 2); OR (VI) ANY TRANSACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF BECOMING A MEMBER OF OR ACQUIRING SHARES IN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPAN Y OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BY WAY OF ANY AGREEMENT O R ANY ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER) WHIC H HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING. OR ENABLING THE EMPLOYM ENT OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY' 6. HE SUBMITTED THAT GOING BY THE DEFINITION OF WOR D 'TRANSFER' APPEARING FROM S.2(47)(V) OF THE I.T. ACT THE SALE WAS COMPLETED WHEN THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2005-06. POSSESSION HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN IN THE YEAR 1996 PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AS INDICATED EARLIER. SECTION 5 0C HAD NO MANNER OF APPLICATION BECAUSE THE VALUATION OF THE LAND FO R THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY WAS YET TO BE ASSESSED. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 50C TO T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE NOT BEEN IMPRESSED BY THIS SUBMISSION. IT IS TRUE THAT TRANSFER HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 2(47) QUOTED A BOVE. BUT THE AFORESAID DEFINITION WAS MADE BEFORE SECTION 50C WA S INTRODUCED TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. AFTER SECTION 50C WAS INTRODUC ED IN THE YEAR I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 9 -: 2003 THE VALUE OF THE LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH SOL D OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED HAS TO BE THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE AUT HORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUATION. THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WHEN THE CONSIDERATIO N WAS RECEIVED THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE HAD NOT EVEN BEEN EXECUTED H AS NOT FOUND FAVOUR WITH US FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE INTEN TION OF THE PARLIAMENT IS THAT IN A. CASE WHERE THE LAND OR BUI LDING OR BOTH ARE SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ONLY AFTER THE STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN ASS ESSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT IS ON THE VALUATION MA DE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY THAT THE TAX IS PAYABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE YEAR 2009 MAY HAVE BEEN MADE THE THINGS SIMPLER BUT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISL ATURE WAS VERY CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE O F INCOME TAX SHALL BE THE SAME AS THE VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY. BY ADOPTI NG DEVICES TO DEFEAT THE PROVISION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HEARD TO CONTEND THAT SECTION 50C WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE MERELY BECAUSE THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE HAD NOT AT THAT TIME BEING EXECUTED OR R EGISTERED. THE CONTENTION THAT THE PROPERTY STOOD TRANSFERRED IN T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WHEN THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED O N THE BASIS OF THE DEFINITION APPEARING FROM S.2(47)(V) OF THE I.T. ACT IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE FOR REASONS ALREADY DISCUSSED . THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DID NOT FOLLOW S.2(47)(V) OF THE I. T. ACT BECAUSE IT DID NOT OFFER THE TRANSFER FOR TAXATION IN THE YEAR 1996 WHEN THE POSSESSION IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OVER ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENTS FOR SALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.2(47)V QUOTED ABOVE. DESIGNS TO EVADE TAX CANNOT BE PERMITTED. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006- 2007 HAD BEFORE HIM THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND RIGHTLY APPLIED THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY THE RELEVANT ARGUMENT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNTING TO ` 69 69 362/- IN ASSESSEES HANDS STANDS CONFIRMED. 10. NOW WE COME TO THE OTHER ADDITION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AMOUNTING TO ` 19 90 138/-(SUPRA). IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN ASSESSEES BANK I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 10 -: ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ALLAHABAD BANK CASH DEPOSI TS OF `19 90 138/- HAD BEEN MADE IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HER BOOKS ALSO DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SAID DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HER FATHER HAD GIFTED HER A SUM OF ` 9 LAKHS. QUA ITS SOURCE SHE CLAIMED THAT HER FATHER WAS A FARMER OWNING ABOUT 1 5 ACRES OF CULTIVABLE LAND WITH COCONUT TREES AND SHE PLACED O N RECORD THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS I.E CHITTA ADANGAL AS WELL AS CO NFIRMATION LETTER FROM HER FATHER. REGARDING THE BALANCE AMOUNT SHE PLEADED TO HAVE WITHDRAWN AND REDEPOSITED THE AFORESAID SUM UNDER V ARIOUS TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION INTER ALIA FOR WANT OF CREDITWORTHINE SS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOWHERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN MADE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN HER INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES RELEVA NT GROUND. 11. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A)S ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 18 TO 20 CONTAINS THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT MAK ES IT EVIDENT THAT ON 6.8.2008 A CASH AMOUNT OF ` 9 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER DEBITS OF ` ` 12 000/- ON 16.8.2008 ` 1 LAKH ON I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 11 -: 18.8.2008 ` 50 000/- ON 28.8.2008 ` 38 000/- ON 4.9.2008 ` 2 50 000/- AND ` 2 LAKHS ON 8.9.2008 TOOK PLACE. ON 8.9.2008 ITSELF SHE HAD CREDITED A SUM OF ` 4 50 000/- ON 8.9.2008. SIMILARLY THE OTHER TRANSACTIONS INCLUDE TWO CREDIT INSTANCES O F ` 1 LAKH AND ` 4 LAKHS ON 29.10.2008 AND 1.11.2008 RESPECTIVELY. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WI DOW AND THE ONLY CHILD OF HER PARENTS. UNDISPUTEDLY THE REVENUE RE CORD PROVING HER FATHER TO BE THE OWNER OF LAND MEASURING APPROXIMAT ELY 15 ACRES IS AVAILABLE IN CASE FILE. SIMILARLY IT IS ALSO A FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF INCOM E OF HER FATHER APART FROM FILING CONFIRMATION EVIDENCE OF LAND ET C. ADMITTEDLY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE PEA K CREDIT FORMULA IN ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDING S. IN THIS SITUATION WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE EXERCISING OUR JU RISDICTION U/S 254 OF THE ACT THAT THE ADDITION IN QUESTION DESERVES TO B E DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY IN STEAD OF REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER WE GRANT PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING 50% OF THE ADDITION OF ` 19 90 138/- AND CONFIRM BALANCE AMOUNT IN HER HANDS. THE RELEVANT GROUND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ACCEPTED. I.T.A.NO.2208/12 :- 12 -: 12. AS A RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 21 ST OF OCTOBER 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST OCTOBER 2013 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR