Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2008 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 951 - HC - Income TaxAddition of unexplained investments u/s 69B - Purchase of Agriculture land unexplained - Not allowed to retract from an earlier admission by mere statement - No opportunity provided for cross examination - seller admitted that he had sold the land in question at the rate of ₹ 4 lacs per acre, but the sale deed was got registered at the rate of ₹ 2.30 lacs per acre - subsequently retracted, assessed the value of the land purchased at the rate of ₹ 4 lacs per acre and framed the assessment while adding ₹ 38.65 lacs for the AY 2001-02 and ₹ 46,32,500 for the AY 2002-03 - Payment of the sale consideration from NRI account - Additions deleted by CIT(A) confirmed by the ITAT HELD THAT:- It is undisputed/position that before the AO said Satinder Pal Singh did not appear and made any statement nor an opportunity was granted to the assessee to confront the sale deed and cross examine Satinder Pal Singh on the statement which he had made before the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investment). In spite of all this evidence, the AO made the addition under Section 69B of the Act only on the basis of conjectures while observing that it is a well known practice that the sale deeds of immovable properties are being registered at the much lower rates than the rates prevailing in the markets. It is also undisputed fact that after selling of the land, Satinder Pal Singh was assessed under the Act and at that time the sale value of the said land was taken as indicated in the registered sale deed and that assessment had become final. In our opinion, the Tribunal has duly appreciated the evidence/material available on the record and various contentions raised by the parties, and then came to the aforesaid conclusion, which in our view, is a pure finding of fact which does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, in our opinion, in these appeals no substantial question of law is arising from the impugned order for consideration of this Court. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.
|