The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on there being no document to prove that assessee is merely a Power of Attorney (POA) holder, upheld the addition of capital gain.
The aforesaid observation was made by the Delhi ITAT, when an appeal was filed before it by the assessee, as against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aligarh, dated 30.03.2017 for AY 2007-08.
The ground of the assessee’s appeal being the orders of the authorities below pertaining to the addition of Rs.2,41,345/- u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, in the hands of the appellant, the main contention of the assessee was that the appellant had sold the property in the capacity of a power of attorney holder only, and that the sale consideration received by the appellant was only in the capacity of power of attorney holder. And therefore, it was the contention of the assessee that no addition be made in the hands of the assessee, without making any enquiry from the owner of the property.
In the written submission the assessee, the assessee having placed his reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. C. Sukumaran, in reply to the above, Shri Om Prakash, the Sr. DR, per contra, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee, while being specifically asked to prove that the sale consideration as received from the sale was given or transferred to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg on behalf of whom he executed the sale deed , has produced no documentary evidence despite repeated directions of the AO. He thus contended that therefore, the AO was right in making the addition in the hands of the assessee and that the CIT(A) was also justified in confirming the same.
Hearing the contentions of the DR, with no representation being made on behalf of the assessee and thereby perusing the materials availale on record, the ITAT Panel comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg, the Judicial Member, observed:
“On careful consideration of rival submission, I am of the considered view that when the assessee is harping on the sole point that he was not the owner of the property sold and he executed sale deed on behalf of owner Shri Ashok Kumar Garg and, therefore, fasting tax liability on account of “short term or long-term capital” gain on the shoulders of the assessee is not valid. But at the same time, from the orders of the authorities below I clearly note that the assessee, despite several directions by the AO, did not produce any documentary evidence to show that the entire sale consideration received by him was transferred to the original owner Shri Ashok Kumar Garg who gave him power of attorney for execution of sale deed.”
“Even despite due service of notice through postal department the assessee has not appeared himself or through any Counsel or Authorized Representative before this Bench. The benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court is available for the assessee only when the assessee successfully prove that he was merely an executor of sale deed in the capacity of Power of Attorney holder, on behalf of the original owner/seller and entire sale consideration has been transferred to the original owner/seller”, the ITAT added.
Thus, finally dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Delhi ITAT held:
“The assessee has failed to prove these relevant facts. Therefore, benefit of said judgment is not available for the assessee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, grounds of assessee being devoid of merits are dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
