DCIT, CHENNAI v. S.C.Sekar, CHENNAI

ITA 2483/CHNY/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 248321714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAEPC4430C
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 2483/CHNY/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent S.C.Sekar, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 01-10-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH CHENNAI . . . . !' $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2483/MDS/2014 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE VI(3) CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI S.C. SEKAR NO.19 THAMBUSWAMY ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI - 600 010. PAN : AAEPC 4430 C (*+/ APPELLANT) ( -*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH JCIT -*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. N. DEVANATHAN ADVOCATE 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2016 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI CHENNA I DATED 26.06.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS 2 I.T.A. NO.2483/MDS/14 DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACC ORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SAL E IN RESPECT OF HIS PROPERTY WITH ONE SHRI J. ASHOK KUMAR LUNIA AND SMT. PRITHI BALA. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ` 3 15 00 000/-. THE TRANSACTION OF SALE RESULTED IN CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 3 11 72 359/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT ON TH E GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS INVESTED IN ANOTHER PROPERTY. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AFTER REFERRING TO THE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 09.1 2.2009 FOUND THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A VACANT LAND AND NOT A BUILDING. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WA S OWNER OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE AT THE TIME OF SALE OF PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO ELIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 O F THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ALSO CANNOT B E CONSIDERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING MORE THAN ONE RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE AT THE TIME OF SALE. HENCE THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT J USTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 I.T.A. NO.2483/MDS/14 3. ON THE CONTRARY SH. N. DEVANATHAN THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE EN TERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF HIS PROPERTY AT HARRINGTON RO AD CHETPET CHENNAI ON 02.12.2009. THE AGREED SALE CONSIDERAT ION WAS ` 3 15 00 000/-. THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SUCH TR ANSACTION WAS ` 3 11 72 359/-. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT ON THE G ROUND THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A VACANT LAND THE REFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. REFERRING T O THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT THE T IME OF SALE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOUND THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LAND ALONG WITH PERMANENT STRUCTURE WHICH WAS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING BY THE CIT(APPEAL S) ON FACTS ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND NOT VACANT SITE. THIS SPE CIFIC FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE. 4 I.T.A. NO.2483/MDS/14 4. REFERRING TO THE PAPER-BOOK THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ASSESSE D BY THE CHENNAI CORPORATION IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING EXIS TED. THE DETAILS OF PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT SHOW THAT THERE WAS A BU ILDING. REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT SAID TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASER OF THE BUILDING A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER-BOOK THE LD.COUNS EL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENT IT IS CLEARLY MENTION ED THAT GROUND AND BUILDING BEARING OLD NO.37 NEW NO.66 HARRINGT ON ROAD CHETPET CHENNAI WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME DOOR NUM BER CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THERE WAS A BUILDING. IN THE SALE D EED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE BUIL DING BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS NO BUILDING AT ALL. THE AG REEMENT SAID TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH IS NOT I N DISPUTE CLEARLY INDICATES THE EXISTENCE OF BUILDING. MOREOVER THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE WAS ASSESSED TO PROPERTY TAX ALSO. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE CIT(APPEALS) RIGH TLY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 5 I.T.A. NO.2483/MDS/14 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 THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AT HARRINGTON ROAD CHETPET CHENNAI WITH SHRI J. ASHOK KUMAR LUNIA AND SMT. PRITI BALA ON 16.10.2009. TH E SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENT WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPE R-BOOK CLEARLY SHOWS THAT WHAT WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE PURCHASERS ARE HOUSE AND LAND. IN THE COPY OF SALE DEED SAID TO BE EXECUTED ON 02.12.2009 WITHIN A SPAN OF TWO MONTHS THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE BUILDING. THE PROPERTY TAX DETAILS SAID TO BE DOWNLOADED FROM WEBSITE OF CORPO RATION OF CHENNAI SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE PROPERT Y TAX IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING AT OLD NO.66 NEW NO.125 HA RRINGTON ROAD. 5. IN VIEW OF THE REFERENCE MADE ABOUT THE EXISTENC E OF BUILDING IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND PROPERTY T AX ASSESSMENT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT WHAT WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E IS ONLY A VACANT LAND AND NOT THE BUILDING. MERELY BECAUSE T HERE WAS NO REFERENCE IN THE SALE DEED THAT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONLY THE VACANT LAND. IN THOSE FACTUAL SI TUATION THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD 6 I.T.A. NO.2483/MDS/14 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SITUATION THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI 4 /DATED THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. KRI. . 156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. -*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-VI CHENNAI-34 4. 0 81 /CIT-VI CHENNAI 5. 69 1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.