Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 260 - AT - Income TaxAmount mentioned in seized diary, part of consideration or not - Assessment u/s 153C - Whether the amount represented, as per the entry in the seized diary, by a pronote, forms part of the consideration for the sale of the property Held that:- The pronote itself was not found or seized by the search party - the entry with regard to the amount represented by the pronote finds place among other entries made with regard to the amounts of payments, forming part of the consideration, and the same which have been made duly assigning the serial numbers like Ist, IInd, etc. - on a comparison of the payments so recorded with the payment recorded with the registered sale deed, it is found that the payments to the tune of ₹ 65 lakhs were matching, and the only amount not accepted is the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs represented by the entry 'pronote' pages of the diary cannot be termed as a sheet of paper and the entries in question cannot be said to be abstract ones without any significance - once all the entries in the relevant page of the diary could be linked up to the sale transaction, only with regard to the pronote, correctness of the entry cannot be challenged - A pronote, being a valuable document, must have been preserved till the realization of money in respect thereof - Mention of the amount represented by the pronote in the relevant page of the seized diary indicates the factum of the same forming part of the consideration - The fact that the pronote was not found at the time of search makes it clear that the amount represented by it must have been received by the assessee, because only upon realization of money, a pronote is either returned to the promissor or destroyed relying upon CIT V/s. Sonal Constructions and Anr. [2012 (11) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the action of the Revenue authorities in treating the amount represented by the pronote as well, as part of the consideration on the sale of the property is upheld Decided against assessee. Claim of exemption u/s 54 denied assessee purchased only plot of land and not residential property No evidence for making evidence on construction of residential house - Held that:- Revenue authorities have denied the claim for exemption, going by the schedule of property and map appended to sale deed through which the assessee purchased the property - Merely because it is titled as 'provisional receipt', its evidentiary value cannot be mitigated, because it is issued by a statutory authority, viz. a local body, and contains details like door no. and assessee's name, date and amount of tax collected, etc. - All the details are capable of being verified from the records of the local civic body, and as such, one cannot create such a evidence just to make believe the version of the assessee - in the absence of any material to the contrary brought on record by the Revenue, the contention of the assessee is accepted that the property purchased by her was not merely a plot of land, but with some residential structure thereon in a semi-finished condition. The version of the assessee of having invested an amount for the completion of residential structure on the plot purchased, was disbelieved on the ground of the smallness of the investment claimed - the assessee purchased the plot of land with a structure existing thereon in semi-finished condition, it cannot be said that the amount claimed to have been spent by the assessee for competing the structure, so as to make it habitable one, is too small - since the plot purchased was claimed to be containing two houses, one constructed by the assessee in 2002 and the other being found under construction at the time of search, which was claimed by the assessee to have been taken up by her husband the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to accept the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act Decided in favour of assessee.
|