Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Shri Chindambar Agnihotri , Dharwad vs Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Hubli on 2 January, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE BENCH 'B' SMC
BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT
ITA No.3211/Bang/2018
Assessment year : 2015-16
Shri Chidambar Agnihotri, Vs. The Income-tax Officer,
Datta Nilaya, Ward-2(1),
Vivekanand Nagar, Hubli.
Dharwad.
PAN - AEUPA 4239F.
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Karuppuswamy S.R, Addl. CIT
Date of hearing : 17.12.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019
ORDER
PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/9/2018 of CIT(A), Huballi relating to asst. year 2015-16.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the AO whereby a sum of Rs.14,95,166/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of un declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of property. The facts are that at the time of survey in the case of the Assessee carried out u/s.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), an agreement for sale evidencing sale of shop No.7 and 8 for Rs.35 lakhs ITA No.3211/B/18 2 dated 25/6/2014 was found and impounded by the Revenue authorities. The assessee has subsequently sold the shops under a registered sale deed for the consideration shown in such sale deed was only for a sum of 7 lakhs. When confronted the assessee took a plea that the earlier agreement was cancelled and the revised sale consideration of Rs.7 lakhs alone was paid. This was not believed by the Revenue authorities and the LTCG on sale of the shops was worked out by the AO as follows:-
3. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the revenue authorities.
4. We are of the view that in the light of the evidence in the form of sale agreement found in the course of survey showing that the consideration agreed between the parties was sum of Rs.35 lakhs and the fact that the same property was sold under a registered sale only for Rs.7 ITA No.3211/B/18 3 lakhs, cast a duty on the part of the Assessee to explain the discrepancy in the price of the property that was sold. There is no plausible explanation for reduction of the price by 80% between the price as agreed in the agreement of sale and the value as per the registered sale deed. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the addition made and confirmed by the revenue authorities are proper and call for no inference.
Accordingly appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd January, 2019.
Sd/-
(N.V VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore Dated : 02/01/2019 Vms Copy to :1. The Assessee
2. The Revenue
3.The CIT concerned.
4.The CIT(A) concerned.
5.DR
6.GF By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore