9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nny from the buyer. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the property but a co-owner along with the sibling and that tax if can be demanded only on the proportionate value. Even as per the petitioner, the petitioner has not received any consideration from his buyer, namely, V.Palanikumar. Therefore, the petitioner s demand for cross-examination of his sibling is an exercise in futility. In the remand report that they had categorically stated that they had given up their rights and it is the petitioner who sold the land to V.Palanikumar after given their power in his favour. Thus, no useful purpose will be served by summoning his siblings for cross-examination. No merits in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as no cross-examination was not allowed to cross-examine the petitioner s siblings. As the far as the cross-examination of the buyer, V.Palanikumar is concerned, was also irrelevant as documents namely sale deed speak for itself. Whatever, the sale consideration declared in the sale deed, dated 26.02.2007 is of no relevant. The value that has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question was under litigation and that a total extent of 8.59 Acres of lands were transferred and the dispute pertains to 1.01 Acres of land and that no sale consideration was received by the petitioner from the buyer namely, V.Palanikumar. It is submitted that even though the petitioner's brothers and sister have stated that they have not received any consideration, the fact remains that the petitioner has also not received any consideration from the buyer V.Palanikumar, who offered to buy the property under litigation between the petitioner and Matheesa Pandian and Duraipandian, the two brothers and that the documents were presented for registration, but could not be completed for want of income tax clearance. 4.In this connection, a reference was made to the decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1682 of 2012 and 11750 of 2013, dated 06.06.2018, in the cases filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by one of the petitioner's buyer namely, V.Palanikumar and one Karuppasamy Pandian. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Circular, dated 06.09.2021, which was modifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F.No.225/97/2021-ITA-II, dated 22.09.2021. It is not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as Paragraph iv (b) of circular, which is one of the exemption for faceless assessment under Section 144 B of the Act. It applies to a situation, where time limit for completion of assessment expires on 30.09.2021 pending with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer as on 11.09.2021 or thereafter, were cannot complete as per the procedure laid down under Section 144 B of the Act due to technical procedure constrains in the given period of limitation. It is therefore submitted that there is no error committed by the respondents while completing the assessment pursuant to the remand order, dated 08.08.2019 of the ITA in ITA No.288/CHNY/2019. 9. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that the respondents have not relied upon the statement of either the buyer, namely, V.Palanikumar or any of the statements of the petitioner s siblings. On the other hand, it is submitted that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the buyer failed to pay the amount and therefore question of the petitioner having paid any amount to the sibling also does not arise. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents. 14. Earlier, the petitioner suffered an assessment order, dated 30.12.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals in I.T.A.No.160/2010-11, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by an order, dated 27.08.2014. The petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals despite having filed the appeal. It is in this back ground, the Appellate Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the order and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order by its order, dated 08.08.2019 in I.T.A No.288/CHNY/2019. 15. The petitioner in this case had not filed a return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act in time. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which culminated in an assessment order, dated 30.12.2010. The said assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. The dispute in this present case pertains to sale of 110 cents of land out of total extent of 8.59 acres. It is the specific case of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
