Ita/192/2013 Of Dr.a.v.sreekumar v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Kochi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935 ITA.No. 192 of 2013 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 691/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 08-02-2013 ............... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE : ------------------------------------------- DR.A.V.SREEKUMAR 'FRAGRANCE', VELLUR, PAYANNUR KANNUR. BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.RAHUL RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/REVENUE : --------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI, PIN-682015. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. No. 192 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2013 Manjula Chellur, C.J. JUDGMENT This appeal pertains to assessment year 2004-05. Though the search conducted by the Department lead to re-opening of assessments pertaining to the years right from1999-2000, we are now concerned with the assessment year2004-05 in respect of sale of apartment at Bangalore. 2. Though the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)considered the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 byseparate order and for the assessment year 2004-05, Tribunalconsidered all the three years together and passed a commonorder. So far as the present controversy, it relates to saleconsideration received by the assessee by the sale of flat whichsaid to have been purchased by the assessee in the year 1998-99. The value of the flat was declared as `9,10,000/-.However, this was found to be incorrect from the materialseized at the time of search. It revealed that total receipt was`14,00,000/- on sale of flat, out of which a sum of `9,50,000/- ITA No. 192 of 2013 was credited to the bank account of the assessee and the balanceamount of `4,50,000/- was credited to the bank account of herhusband, Sri.A.V. Karunakaran. However, she tried to explainthat the amount of `9,50,000/- includes `40,000/- for the saleof car parking. Her husband said to have received `2,50,000/-towards sale of furniture and `2,00,000/- towards cost for repairsdone for the flat. She tried to substantiate the said contentioneven by securing the statement of son of the purchaser of theproperty by name one Ramkumar. On analysing the facts of thecase, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion,Mr.Ramkumar paid a total amount of `12,40,000/- out of which`2,00,000/- was towards repairs. Therefore, Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals) concluded, the sale consideration of the flatshould be taken as `10,40,000/-. Aggrieved by this opinion, bothRevenue and the assessee were before the Tribunal. 3. Tribunal, after analysing the entire facts on record, opined that the enquiry conducted by the assessing officerrevealed that `2,50,000/- said to have been received towardsthe value of the furniture was created statement but in fact it was ITA No. 192 of 2013 -:3:- not correct. Therefore, they have rejected the explanation given for `2,50,000/- towards sale value of furniture. Having regard tothe fact that the buyer confirms the sale value at `10,40,000/-,Tribunal rightly opined that the the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was justified in fixing the sale consideration at`10,40,000/-. 3. Tribunal, after analysing the entire facts on record, opined that the enquiry conducted by the assessing officerrevealed that `2,50,000/- said to have been received towardsthe value of the furniture was created statement but in fact it was ITA No. 192 of 2013 -:3:- not correct. Therefore, they have rejected the explanation given for `2,50,000/- towards sale value of furniture. Having regard tothe fact that the buyer confirms the sale value at `10,40,000/-,Tribunal rightly opined that the the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was justified in fixing the sale consideration at`10,40,000/-. In the light of material from the above said facts,which was relied upon by the assessing officer, the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal, we are of the opinion,there is no scope for further analysation of the facts to take adifferent opinion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/12/12 ITA No. 192 of 2013