Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
J.Samuvel, Tirunelveli vs Ito Ward 1(4), Tirunelveli on 15 February, 2019
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण ' बी'
बी यायपीठ,
यायपीठ चे ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी एन.आर
एन आर.एस
आर एस.
एस गणेशन,न याियक सद य एवं
ी अ ाहम पी.जॉज लेखा सद य के सम ।
[BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]
S.P.No.31/CHNY/2019
( in आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.288/CHNY/2019)
िनधा रण वष /Assessment year : 2007-2008
Shri. J. Samuvel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
B-193, 12th Cross Street, Ward 1(4)
NGO, ''A'' Colony, Tirunelveli.
Tirunelveli 627 007.
[PAN BBNPS 8519K]
(Petitioner) यथ /Respondent)
यथ
( यथ
Petitioner by : Ms. Dinkle Kothari, C.A.
Respondent by : Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT.
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15-02-2019
घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-02-2019
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessee through this stay petition pleads for stay of recovery of demand of Rs.15,91,071/- outstanding out of a total demand of Rs.23,03,470/-.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had already paid Rs.6,70,000/- out of the total tax demand. As per the ld. Authorized Representative the demand arose due to assessment of :- 2 -: SP No.31/2019 long term capital gains on a property measuring 101 cents sold, applying Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). As per the ld. AR, property sold on which capital gains was assessed had devolved on the assessee on the death of his mother who was the original owner of the property. According to him, assessee was only one among the six legal heirs. As per the ld, AR, assessee would be at the best assessable to 1/6th of the total capital gains. Further, according to him, just because the co-owners had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the assessee would not mean that consideration on sale of the property was that of the assessee alone. That apart, as per the ld. AR, assessee was looking after his daughter who had undergone a Kidney transplantation and had incurred huge expenditure and was in great financial difficulty.
3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee could not show any good reason for grant of a stay.
4. We have heard both the parties, perused the orders of lower authorities and the stay petition filed by the assessee. Out of the total demand of Rs.23,03,470/-, a sum of Rs.6,70,000/- has already been paid by the assessee. Contention of the assessee is that he was only one of the six legal heirs of the property which was sold and hence liable for 1/6th capital gains only. Assessee has been able to show a strong prima facie case. Considering the facts and :- 3 -: SP No.31/2019 circumstances of the case, we grant a stay on the recovery of balance demand of Rs.15,91,071/- for a period of six months from the date of this order or date of pronouncement of the order in the appeal, whichever falls earlier. Ordered accordingly.
5. In the result, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on Friday, the 15th day of February 2019, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एन.आर
एन आर.एस
आर एस.
एस गणेशन)
न ) (अ ाहम पी.जॉज)
(N.R.S. GANESAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)
याियक सद य/
सद य JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/
सद य ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai
दनांक/Dated:15th February, 2019.
KV
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to:
1. Petitioner 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
2. यथ /Respondent 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF