K. S. Ramesh Babu v. ITO, Ward – 6 (3) (2), Bangalore
[Citation -2016-LL-0923-173]

Citation 2016-LL-0923-173
Appellant Name K. S. Ramesh Babu
Respondent Name ITO, Ward – 6 (3) (2), Bangalore
Court ITAT-Bangalore
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/09/2016
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags opportunity of being heard • taxable capital gain • sale consideration • payment in cash • sale deed
Bot Summary: 2 raised before the tribunal, such payment was made out of sale consideration then whether the sale consideration was received in cash. As per the confirmation available on page 8, it is stated that the payment was received on the date of execution of sale deed in cash. The learned AR has admitted that sale consideration was received by cheque and therefore, the same cannot be used for this payment on the date of execution of sale deed because it requires time to deposit the cheque in bank, 2 ITA No. 1496(Bang) 2016 clearance of cheque and then cash withdrawal from bank. Very surprisingly, as per Ground No. 2 raised before the tribunal, it is stated that this payment is out of sale consideration but when confronted that how cheque can be used to make payment in cash, a different contention was raised by the learned AR of the assessee that such payment is out of saving from other incomes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Date on which the order comes back to the Sr. P.S... 6. 12 The date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal order 13 Date of dispatch of order.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC , BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA No. 1496(Bang) 2016 (Assessment year : 2006 07) Sri K. S. Ramesh Babu, No. 645, 18th Main, Block, Sahakarnagar, Bangalore 560092 PAN : AAJPR9302D Appellant Vs ITO, Ward 6 (3) (2), Bangalore Respondent Assessee by :Shri S. Ganesh Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Naresh Saka JCIT Date of hearing : 22-09-2016 Date of pronouncement : 23-09-2016 ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by assessee. This is directed against order of learned CIT (A) 6, Bangalore dated 03.05.2016 for A. Y. 2006 07. 2. assessee has raised several grounds. grievances are two. First grievance is about disallowance of claim of brokerage of Rs. 150,000/- paid to agents out of sale consideration of Rs. 70 lacs. second grievance is about not reducing amount of taxable capital gain in view of section 112 (1) (a). 3. Learned AR of assessee made various submissions about first issue. query was raised by bench that finding of A.O. is this that assessee has not produced any proof of payment of brokerage of Rs. 150,000/- as claimed then whether any proof was filed before him. In reply, he submitted that confirmation of payee is available on page no. 8. Second query was raised by bench that as per this confirmation, payment was made in cash at time of registration of sale deed on 09.12.2005 and as per ground no. 2 raised before tribunal, such payment was made out of sale consideration then whether sale consideration was received in cash. In reply, he submitted that sale consideration was received by cheque but payment of brokerage was made out of savings out of other incomes which was Rs. 64,280/- in present year. Learned DR of revenue supported orders of authorities below. 4. I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. I find that A.O. has given categorical finding in assessment order that assessee has not produced any proof regarding claim of payment of brokerage. As per confirmation available on page 8, it is stated that payment was received on date of execution of sale deed in cash. learned AR has admitted that sale consideration was received by cheque and therefore, same cannot be used for this payment on date of execution of sale deed because it requires time to deposit cheque in bank, 2 ITA No. 1496(Bang) 2016 clearance of cheque and then cash withdrawal from bank. Very surprisingly, as per Ground No. 2 raised before tribunal, it is stated that this payment is out of sale consideration but when confronted that how cheque can be used to make payment in cash, different contention was raised by learned AR of assessee that such payment is out of saving from other incomes. This contention raised as afterthought has no merit because other income is only Rs. 64,280/- and assessee requires money for day to day expenses also. Hence, on first issue, I confirm orders of lower authorities. 5. On second issue, I feel it proper to restore matter back to A.O. to compute Capital gain in light of provisions of section 112 (1) (a) because income other than capital gain is below maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. A.O. is directed to pass necessary order as per law on this aspect as per section 112 (1) (a) after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. Sd/- (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore: Dated: 23.09.2016 am* Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 CIT(A)-II Bangalore 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6 Guard file By order, AR, ITAT, Bangalore 3 ITA No. 1496(Bang) 2016 1. Date of Dictation .. 2. Date on which typed draft is placed before dictating Member . 3. Date on which approved draft comes to Sr. P. S. .. 4 Date on which order is placed before dictating Member for pronouncement .. 5. Date on which order comes back to Sr. P.S. .. 6. Date of uploading order on website .. 7. If not uploaded, furnish reason for doing so . 8. Date on which file goes to Bench Clerk .. 9. Date on which order does for Xerox & endorsement . 10. Date on which file goes to Head Clerk . 11 date on which file goes to Assistant Registrar for signature on order . 12 date on which file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of Tribunal order 13 Date of dispatch of order K. S. Ramesh Babu v. ITO, Ward – 6 (3) (2), Bangalore
Report Error