Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Anthiah Pancras, Tiruvannamalai vs Ito Ward 1, Thiruvannamalai on 9 November, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, डी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ''D' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज , लेखा सद य एवं
ी ध$ु व%
ु आर.एल रे &डी, या(यक सद य के सम* ।
[BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER]
S.P.No. 345 & 346/CHNY/2018
(in आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.27 & 28/CHNY/2017).
नधा रण वष /Assessment years : 2008-09 & 2009-2010..
Shri. Anthiah Pancras, Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Ramana Maharishi Loyala Ward 1,
Academy, 501, 6th Main, Thiruvannamalai.
13th Cross, N.H. Road,
Tiruvannamalai 606 603.
[PAN ASJPP 4900H]
(Petitioner) (,-यथ//Respondent)
Petitioner by : None
Respondent by : Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 09.11.2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessee through this stay petitions pleads for stay of recovery of tax and interest aggregating C43,77,773/- for assessment year 2008-09 and C80,60,728/- for assessment year 2009-2010.
2. When the stay petition was called up for hearing nobody appeared for the assessee.
:- 2 -: S.P.No.345 and 346/18
3. We find from the stay petition that demand for both these years arose on account of taxing capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s.10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''), and treating the deposits in bank account from consideration received on such sale as unexplained income of the assessee. Lower authorities had taken a view that land sold did not answer the description of agricultural land and hence was a capital asset. As per the assessee the deposits in his bank account came out of sale proceeds of agricultural land. Contention of the assessee before the lower authorities was that he had executed an agreement on 07.01.2008 with one Shri. S.D. Sethu and Shri Palani for selling 25.36 acres of land for a consideration of C1,91,50,575/-, and had handed over the possession of the property and had received a sum of C50,00,000/- on the date of agreement. Assessee claimed that deposits made on various dates in the bank account, mentioned hereunder represented consideration received from Shri. S.D. Sethu and Shri. Palani.
Date of receipt Amount (C)
04.03.2008 25,00,000
15.03.2008 7,00,000
24.07.2008 50,00,000
02.08.2008 20,00,000
05.09.2008 15,00,000
11.09.2008 10,00,000
11.09.2008 22,00,000
27.09.2008 10,00,000
Total 1,59,00,000
:- 3 -: S.P.No.345 and 346/18
4. Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that assessee could not show any good reason for grant of a stay.
5. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative, perused the orders of lower authorities and the stay petitions filed by the assessee. Contention of the assessee before lower authorities was that the deposits made by him in his bank account were out of the consideration of C1,91,50,575/- received in installments from Shri. S.D. Sethu and Shri. Palani, on sale of his agricultural land to them. Lower authorities had examined both these persons. Assessee was also given opportunity for cross examining Shri. S.D. Sethu. Shri. S.D. Sethu had completely denied paying any money other than C25,00,000/- on 07.01.2008 and feigned ignorance of any other transactions. That apart, lower authorities had also examined the Village Administrative Officer Shri. R. Devaraj who had stated that land was converted to saleable plots, when he conducted inspection in November, 2015. No doubt, Village Administrative Officer did say that the Revenue record reflected it to be agricultural land. However, registered sale deed showed consideration as C23,34,900/- against the claim of the assessee that he had received C1,91,50,575/-. In such circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the assessee that he had received anything more than what was mentioned in the conveyance :- 4 -: S.P.No.345 and 346/18 deed. We are thus of the opinion that assessee has been unable to establish a prime facie case. Financial difficulty if any faced by the assessee is also not demonstrated. We are therefore not inclined to grant a stay sought by the assessee
6. In the result, the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 9th November, 2018 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ध$ु व%
ु आर.एल रे &डी) (अ ाहम पी. जॉज )
(DUVVURU RL REDDY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)
या(यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai
दनांक/Dated:09.11.2018.
KV
आदे श क " त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy to:
1. Petitioner 3. आयकर आयु-त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. $वभागीय " त न2ध/DR
2. "3यथ5/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु-त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF