Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
C.Yogalakshmi, Chennai vs Jcit, Chennai on 9 March, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, ''सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
' C' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी जॉज माथन, या यक सद
य के सम
एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद
य
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI
A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S.P.No. 107/Mds/2018
AND
ITA No.1489/Mds/2015
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11
Smt. C. Yogalakshmi, Joint Commissioner of
Block 6, Flat No. 3C, v. Income Tax,
Rani Meyyammai Towers, Business Circle XV,
MRC Nagar, Chennai.
Chennai - 600 028.
[PAN: ACBPY 8463G]
S.P. No. 106/Mds/2018
AND
ITA No.1490/Mds/2016
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11
Smt. C. Shanthi, Joint Commissioner of
Block -6, Flat No. 3C, v. Income Tax,
Rani Meyyammai Towers, Business Circle XV,
MRC Nagar, Chennai.
Chennai - 600 028.
[PAN: APGPS 9089A]
(
ाथ क /Petitioner) (
यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,Advocate
!यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT,D.R
सन
ु वाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 09-03-2018
घोषणा क तार%ख /Date of Pronouncement : 09-03-2018
:- 2 -: SP Nos.106 & 107/CHNY/18
ITA No.1490/16 & 1489/15
आदे श / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SP No.106/Mds./2018 is a Stay Petition filed by the assessee, viz.Smt.C.Shanthi in her appeal in ITA No.1490/CHNY/2017 and SP No.107/Mds./2018 is a Stay Petition filed by the assessee, viz.Smt.C.Shanthi in her appeal in ITA No.1489/CHNY/2015.
2. Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, represented on behalf of two assessees and Mr.B.Sagadevan,JCIT represented on behalf of Revenue.
3. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld.A.R that the both the assessees are co-owners. It was a submission that the issue in the appeals itself was that the assessees were Two ( 2 ) of the Nine ( 9 ) co-owners of property known as 'THIRUTTANI MURUGAN' bearing old No.503, New No.624, Anna Salai, Teynampet,Chennai-18, which had been sold to M/s.Shankalpam Industries P Ltd. It was a submission that an agreement of sale was entered into on 02.05.2008 and the property was registered by the registered sale deed dated 27.04.2009. It was a submission that the property documents in original had been handed over the purchasers and constructive possession of the scheduled property had also been handed over when the agreement was entered into. It was a submission that consequently the capital gains in respect of transfer of the said property was liable to be assessed in the assessment year :- 3 -: SP Nos.106 & 107/CHNY/18 ITA No.1490/16 & 1489/15 2009-10. However, on ground that the sale deed was executed on 02.05.2008 and on ground that the Power of Attorney was executed on 29.04.2008, the AO held that the capital gain was liable to be assessed during the assessment year 2010-11. It was a submission that similar issues had been raised in the case of other co-owners also. It was a submission that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Revenue's appeal in the case of Smt.P.T.Geetha Ramani in ITA No.2384/Mds./2016 & CO No.144/Mds./2016 for assessment year 2010-11 & also in Revenue's appeal in the case of Shri P.N.Thiagarajan, in ITA No.2385/Mds./2016 & CO No.145/Mds./2016 for assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 31.01.2017 had accepted the contention of assessee that the capital gains in respect of the said property was liable to assessed only during the assessment year 2009-10. It was further submission that in the case of Smt.P.A.Mangalam, Smt.N.A.Seethalaxmi, Smt.Kamala Vijayakumar and Smt.Valli Rajan, the ld. Assessing Officer himself had completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short 'the Act') wherein the capital gains in respect of sale of the said property had been assessed to capital gains tax for assessment year 2009-10. Further, it was submitted that in the case of Shri P.N.Thiagarajan & Smt P.T.Geetha Ramani against the Order of Tribunal dated 31.01.2017, the Revenue had taken the matter in :- 4 -: SP Nos.106 & 107/CHNY/18 ITA No.1490/16 & 1489/15 appeal to the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in Tax case appeal No.675 & 676 of 2017 wherein vide order dated 14.12.2017, the Order of Tribunal has also been upheld. It was thus a submission that the issue in appeal being fully covered, both the assessee was entitled to say of recovery of the disputed taxes. It was further submission that the assessee had no objection, if the appeals of assessees are disposed off at this stage itself. To this submission, the ld.D.R did not raise any objection. Consequently, both the appeals of the assessees are disposed off by this common order.
4. ITA No.1489/CHNY/2018, being the appeal of assessee, viz.Smt.C.Yogalakshmi is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in Income-tax Appeal No.252/CIT(A)-12/2013-14 dated 16.03.2015 for assessment year 2010-11 and ITA No.1490/CHNY/2015, being the appeal of assessee, viz.Smt.C.Shanthi is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai in Income-tax Appeal No.249/CIT(A)-12/2013-14 dated 16.03.2015 for assessment year 2010-11.
5. Before us, ld.A.R reiterated his submission as made in the course of Stay Petition. Ld.A.R also placed before us the copies of the assessment orders in the cases of Smt.P.A.Mangalam, & Smt.N.A.Seethalaxmi passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2014 and :- 5 -: SP Nos.106 & 107/CHNY/18 ITA No.1490/16 & 1489/15 Smt.Kamala Vijayakumar for assessment year 2009-10 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act on 12.01.2015, and in the case of Smt.Valli Rajan for assessment year 2009-10 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 27.03.2014. The ld.A.R also placed before us the copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Smt.P.T.Geetha Ramani & Shri P.N.Thiagarajan cited supra and also the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri P.N.Thiagarajan & Smt.P.T.Geetha Ramani cited supra. It was a submission tht the levy of capital gains for assessment year 2010-11 may be deleted insofar as the the capital gains was assessable only during the assessment year 2009-10.
6. In reply, the ld.D.R strongly supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A).
7. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessees are co-owners in respect of the properties, which has been sold and in the case of other co-owners, their Assessing Authority themselves and in the case of two other co-owners, the jurisdictional High Court has upheld the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal holding that the capital gain is liable to be assessed only during the assessment year 2009-10. This being so, respectively following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.P.T.Geetha Ramani and Shri P.N.Thiagarajan (supra), the :- 6 -: SP Nos.106 & 107/CHNY/18 ITA No.1490/16 & 1489/15 levy of capital gain is held not taxable during the assessment year 2010-11, that is during the impugned assessment year, but is assessable only during the assessment year 2009-10. In these circumstances, the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed.
8. As we have allowed the appeals of the assessees, the Stay Petition filed by the assessees, viz.Smt.C.shanthi and Smt.C.Yogalakshmi, stand dismissed as infructuous.
9. In the result, the Stay Petitions filed by both the assessees are dismissed and the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 09th March, 2018, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) ( जॉज माथन)
(A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (GEORGE MATHAN)
लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai
+दनांक/Dated: 09th March, 2018.
K S Sundaram
आदे श क त.ल/प अ0े/षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 3. आयकर आयु1त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. /वभागीय त न4ध/DR
2. !यथ /Respondent 4. आयकर आयु1त/CIT 6. गाड7 फाईल/GF