T. Laavanya v. The Income-tax Officer, Ward–VIII(3), Chennai
[Citation -2016-LL-0923-89]
| Citation | 2016-LL-0923-89 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | T. Laavanya |
| Respondent Name | The Income-tax Officer, Ward–VIII(3), Chennai |
| Court | ITAT-Chennai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 23/09/2016 |
| Assessment Year | 2010-11 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | sale consideration • managing director • capital gain |
| Bot Summary: | According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee offered the sale proceeds for capital gain taxation. The Assessing Officer said to have obtained an affidavit and sale receipt on 22.03.2013 from Shri Janakiraman and on the basis of that so- called sale receipt, determined the sale consideration at 1,12,00,000/- and the share of the assessee was determined at 56,00,000/-. According to the Ld. counsel, the so-called affidavit and sale receipt was not brought to the notice of the assessee, Even a copy of the affidavit was not furnished to the assessee the assessee could not comment upon the so-called affidavit and sale receipt. The Ld. counsel submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain the real facts before the Assessing Officer after considering the so-called affidavit of sale receipt. According to the Ld. counsel, the affidavit and so-called sale receipt is not signed either by the assessee or Smt. Susheela and there is likelihood of forging the document by 3 I.T.A. No.1627/Mds/16 Shri Janakiraman. On the contrary, Shri V. Nandakumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the affidavit and sale receipt was signed by both the assessee and Smt. Susheela. The Assessing Officer shall furnish a copy of the so-called affidavit and 4 I.T.A. No.1627/Mds/16 sale receipt to the assessee and thereafter, decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the assessee. |