Padmavathy Ravishankar v. The Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 23 (2)Tambaram, Chennai-45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Padmavathy Ravishankar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 23 (2)Tambaram, Chennai-45 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-10Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 ... Respondents Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of theimpugned notice dated 29.07.2015 in Stay of Collection/2015-16/AAFPR5821F of the 1st Respondent and to quash the same andto direct the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal filed bythe Petitioner. For Petitioner :Mr.K.RaviFor Respondent :Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda,Senior CounselORDER In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks for adirection to the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal filedagainst the assessment order and to quash the impugned noticedated 29.07.2015 of the 1st Respondent, demanding 50% of thedemanded tax in order to stay the recovery proceedings,pending disposal of the appeal. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that thePetitioner filed Income Tax Return for the assessment year2012-13 on 27.3.2013, admitting an income of Rs.3,57,010/-.The Petitioner purchased UDS of 1189 sq.ft. with 139 sq.ft.common passage and buildings thereon, comprised inS.No.207/24, New T.S.No.22 Part, Block No.30, Koyambedu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Village, Chennai, by a registered sale deed dated 3.2.2006 fora total sale consideration of Rs.25,09,940/-. Later, thePetitioner came to know that there was a title dispute in thesaid lands between the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and oneS.Gowri, which was settled out of court in the year 2011,pursuant to which, a sale deed dated 12.05.2011 was executedin respect of 6.06 grounds in favour of said S.Gowri, who inturn executed a sale deed dated 29.12.2011 in favour of thePetitioner. Though the market value of the property in thesale deed dated 29.12.2011 is shown as Rs.1,15,28,000/-, noconsideration was paid by the Petitioner. However, a noticeunder Section 143(2) dated 23.9.2013 was issued. The defect inthe title due to the change in the area of the property wassought to be rectified by the Petitioner by the sale deeddated 12.08.2011. The Petitioner explained to the 1stRespondent that the properties conveyed by the said two saledeeds are one and the same and that the property conveyedunder the sale deed dated 29.12.2011 is the only area of theproperty reconveyed after rectification. However, the 1stRespondent by assessment order dated 31.03.2015, demanded atax of Rs.54,05,590/- including interest, taking intoconsideration the market value of the property asRs.1,15,28,000/- and adding Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplainedinvestment, to the total income. As against the same, thePetitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd Respondent andfiled a stay petition before the 1st Respondent to stay thecollection of tax, pending the appeal. By the impugned order,dated 29.7.2015, collection of tax was stayed till thedisposal of the appeal, on payment of 50% of the demanded tax.As against the same, this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitionercontended that the defect in the title due to the change inthe area of the property was sought to be rectified by thePetitioner by the sale deed dated 12.08.2011 and afterrectification, the properties conveyed under the two saledeeds are one and the same and that the Petitioner has notpaid any consideration as stated in the sale deed dated29.12.2011, which was confirmed by the vendors and theaddition of Rs.9,00,000/- is unwarranted, as the same has beenexplained. The learned counsel for the Petitioner hassubmitted that the Petitioner is willing to pursue the appealand to pay a substantial sum, as a condition to stay therecovery proceedings, till the disposal of the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitionercontended that the defect in the title due to the change inthe area of the property was sought to be rectified by thePetitioner by the sale deed dated 12.08.2011 and afterrectification, the properties conveyed under the two saledeeds are one and the same and that the Petitioner has notpaid any consideration as stated in the sale deed dated29.12.2011, which was confirmed by the vendors and theaddition of Rs.9,00,000/- is unwarranted, as the same has beenexplained. The learned counsel for the Petitioner hassubmitted that the Petitioner is willing to pursue the appealand to pay a substantial sum, as a condition to stay therecovery proceedings, till the disposal of the appeal. 4. On the above averments and the submissions ofthe learned counsel for the Petitioner, this court heard thelearned standing counsel for the Respondents and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side andalso perused the materials placed on record. 5. According to the Respondents, the propertyconveyed in the original deed is not exactly the same as theproperty mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.12.2011 andhence, only by the sale deed dated 29.12.2011, the ownershipis legally vested with the assessee. According to thePetitioner, only for record purpose, the total market value ofthe property was mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.12.2011as Rs.1,15,28,000/- as per the directions of Sub Registrar,taking into consideration the guide line value prevailed inthe year 2011. Be that as it may. It appears that theproperty in question, which was earlier registeredinadvertently came to be registered once again, which lead theassessing authority to pass the impugned assessment orderunder the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as againstwhich, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2ndRespondent and in the stay application filed by thePetitioner, the Petitioner was directed to pay 50% of thedemanded tax in order to stay the recovery proceedings tillthe disposal of the appeal, which is challenged in this WritPetition. Since the Petitioner is willing to pursue theappeal before the 2nd Respondent, she can be permitted toraise all the grounds and submissions made in this WritPetition before the 2nd Respondent on payment of substantialsum to stay the recovery proceedings, pending the appeal. 6. Accordingly, considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, without going into the merits ofthe case, the Petitioner is directed to pay a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) within a period ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.On such payment, the Respondents are restrained frominitiating the recovery proceedings against the Petitioner,till the disposal of the appeal by the 2nd Respondent. The2nd Respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, on meritsand in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition isdisposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP isclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) Sub Assistant Registrar Srcm To: 1.The Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 23 (2)Tambaram, Chennai-45Non Corporate Ward 23 (2)Tambaram, Chennai-45 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Appeals-10Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 +1cc to Mr.K.Ravi, Advocate, S.R.No.61912WP.No.35051 of 2015AR IVCA(25/11/2015)