Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Ramu Subbiah, Chennai vs Assessee on 29 July, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.
G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SP. No.173/Mds/2016
(in I.T.A. No.2058/Mds/2016)
( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-2012)
Shri. Ramu Subbiah, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income
Old No.8, New No.16, Tax,
Rutland Gate 5th Street, Circle -12,
Thousand Lights, Chennai.
Chennai 600 006.
[PAN AELPR7916R]
Petitioner Respondent
Petitioner by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate.
Respondent by : Shri. Supriya Pal, IRS, JCIT.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 29.07.2016
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2016
आदे श / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
By this stay petition the assessee seeks to stay the outstanding disputed tax demand of :2,68,91,611/-.
2. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has paid a sum of :33,09,520.30 after filing the stay petition by way of attaching of Bank Account by Tax Recovery Officer with Royal Bank of
-2- S.P.No.173/Mds/2016 Scotland, Chepet Branch, Chennai. According to ld. Authorised Representative outstanding balance of tax as of now is :2,35,52,091/. Further ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the issue in dispute before this Tribunal is with regard to chargeability of tax under Capital Gains arising out of sale of property situated in Sholingallur village which is beyond 13.5 Kms from the Municipal limit of Chennai and it is an agricultural land in terms of Sec. 2(14)(iii) (b) of the Act . The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that Revenue records like Patta, Chitta Adangal and Crop Adangal show that it is a agricultural land and there is no question of treating it as non agricultural land as the assessee has purchased agricultural land and sold only the same. According to ld. Authorised Representative the assessee is having prime facie good case in his favour. As such absolute stay may be granted.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has not complied with all the conditions stipulated in Sec. 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As as such it has to considered as non agricultural land and tax on Capital Gains to be levied.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case the total demand in dispute was
-3- S.P.No.173/Mds/2016 :4,17,70,206/-. After passing rectification order by the lower authorities, the assessee said to have paid :1,81,88,115/-. Out of this, interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C is around :1,50,78,006/- and tax portion :2,66,92,200/-. In other words, the assessee has paid major portion of the tax. In our opinion the assessee prime facie having good case in his favour and it is fit case to grant stay. Accordingly, we grant absolute stay for six months from the date of this order or disposal of this appeal whichever is earlier. Further, we post the case for hearing on 29.08.2016. No notice for hearing would be issued to both parties, this order itself would be served as notice to both parties. The assessee if wanted to file any paper book the same shall be filed on or before 22nd August, 2006. With these observations, we dispose the stay petition.
Order pronounced on Friday, the 29th day of July 2016 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. PAVAN KUMAR) (CHANDRA POOJARI)
या यक सद य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai
दनांक/Dated:29.07.2016
KV
आदे श क त!ल#प अ&े#षत/Copy to:
1. Petitioner 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR. 6. Guard File