Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Hajira Begum, Chennai vs Ito, Chennai on 20 June, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, D/'SMC' यायपीठ, चे नई ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
D/"SMC" BENCH, CHENNAI
ी. चं पज
ू ार लेखा सद य , के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A.No.959/Mds./2017
( Assessment Year : 2010-11)
Smt.Hajira Begum, Income Tax officer,
D-7,2nd Floor, Krishna Apts, Vs. NCR (11)4,
Govardhan Street, Royapettah, Chennai-34.
Chennai.
PAN AEDPH 0334 P
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Mr.R.Viswanathan, FCA
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R
सन
ु वाई क तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 20.06.2017
घोषणा क तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017
आदे श / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-13, Chennai dated 23.03.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds for adjudication. 2 ITA No.959/Mds/2017
1. The Order in ITA No.63/CIT(A)-13 /2010-11 dt 23.03.2017 of the Learned CIT(A)- Appeals -13, Chennai the Assessment year AY 2010-2011 is contrary to facts, opposed to law and untenable.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) grossly erred in not considering the Long Term Capital gains had accrued on 12.01 .2007 as the Appellant had already given the Possession of the Property resulting in transfer of the property by that date and consideration in full has been received by that date.
2.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) grossly erred in not considering the datel2.01.2007 as the date of transfer uls.2(47) of Income tax Act and the date of execution of Sale deed subsequently was merely a ritual -- a procedural formality to be complied with under Transfer of Property Act.
2.2 The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the confirmation from the Power Agent. 2.3 The Learned Commissioner without giving finding of fact erred in observing that the Confirmation from the power agent was after thought and backdated.
3. The facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income for AY 2010-11, it was only when information were received to the department through SRO and from the copy of the sale deed document No.729/2010 dated 16,11.2009, the AO come to know about the sale of property by the assessee through the power agent. Again the sale consideration shown therein the sale deed and the stamp duty value levied by the SRO i.e. stamp duty valuation 3 ITA No.959/Mds/2017 authority was different. Therefore, the AO has reason to believe that in view of see.50C of the Income Tax Act the income had escaped assessment Therefore the AO issued notice u/s 148 and in finalising re-assessment proceedings, the AO sought clarification from the assessee. It was contended by the assessee before the AO that she had executed power of attorney on 12.01.2007 in favour of Shri G.Sridhar Reddy in F.Y 2007-07 and consideration of Rs.3.30,000/- was received. In support of her claim, she has relied on Shri G.Sridhar Reddy's confirmation letter dated 02.06.2016. According to the assessee, the sale deed dated 16.11.2009 was wholly executed by Shri G.Sridhar Reddy and therefore she is not in any manner connected to the sale transaction, Relying on this, the appellant claims that capital gains has arisen in A.Y 2007-08 and accordingly, long term capital gains arrived at was within the taxable limit of `1,35,000/- for assessment year 2007-08. Hence, return for the same year was also as such not filed. Mr.G.Sridhar Reddy had produced the confirmation letter dated 02.06.2016 written by the power agent, who had confirmed that he had paid `3,30,000/- by cash to assessee as consideration amount from Mr.Harish before the GPS 4 ITA No.959/Mds/2017 registration. Subsequently, the property was sold to Suganthi Kumaresan and the sale consideration was received by Harish. The AO came to a conclusion that the POA holder has acted on behalf of the assessee and hence the assessee is liable for long term capital gains and completed the assessment by bringing the long term capital gains of `11,94,327/-. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
3.1 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) endorsed the view of the ld. Assessing Officer on the reason that the sale of property by the power of attorney attracts capital gains on the date of sale of property on which the possession of the property was given by sale deed which was registered on 16.11.2009 in the assessee's case. Further, Ld.CIT(A) observed that the provisions of the section 50C of the Act is applicable on date of sale of the property and parting the possession on 16.11.2009 and not the date of power of attorney. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is in appeal before us.
5 ITA No.959/Mds/2017
4. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The main pleas of assessee is that the asset was transferred to the assessee by way of power of attorney and transfer took placed through the power of attorney on the date 12.01.2007, so the provisions of the section 50C cannot be invoked in the assessment year under consideration. We have carefully gone through the power of attorney cited supra. As per power of attorney "Mrs.Ajira Begum only given power of attorney who can act on behalf of her and she has confirmed in the clause-18 of the power of attorney that under this power of attorney she has not received any consideration from the lawful attorney relating to the schedule mentioned property. Being so, when there is no consideration passed from the power of agent to the present assessee, Mrs.Ajira Begum, it cannot be said that there was a transfer vide power of attorney dated 12.01.2007.
5. In my opinion, the transfer took place through sale deed dated 16.11.2009, which is a valid legal document wherein it was mentioned that sale consideration was actually passed between the parties therein. When the circumstances like this, the assessee has produced one confirmation letter from Mr.G.Sridhar Reddy stating 6 ITA No.959/Mds/2017 that he has paid ` 3,30,000/- vide power of attorney dated 12.01.2007. Hence, in my opinion, this is a self serving document for which I cannot give any credit, as it is contrary to the legal documents, which were duly registered. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that lower authorities are justified in invoking the provisions of the section 50C of the Act. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th June, 2017.
Sd/-
(चं पज ू ार ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated the 20th June, 2017.
K s sundaram.
आदे श क )त*ल+प अ,े+षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 3. आयकर आयु-त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. +वभागीय )त)न2ध/DR
2. यथ /Respondent 4. आयकर आयु-त/CIT 6. गाड5 फाईल/GF