Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 497 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s 69 B - search u/s 132 - Held that:- Revenue made the additions only based on the two agreements found at the time of search. There are no other evidences coming forth to establish that the assessee would have paid over and above the amount mentioned in the registered documents. There was no evidence to show that the assessee had purchased the land through the middleman. Though, there were two agreements, there was nothing to substantiate that they were acted upon. Mr. Natvarsingh Admar who is supposed to be the middleman had confirmed before the revenue authorities in his statement u/s 131 dated 24-11-2011 that the agreements executed were not acted upon and they were cancelled.The registered documents suggest only the facts that the land was purchased by all the assessees directly from the farmers at the rates specified therein.There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there was payment of on-money or to suggest that the market value of the land purchased by the assessees was over and above shown in the registered documents. In fact, all the documents were executed at the Jantry Value. AO had also not referred the matter to the Valuation Officer to establish that the value of the land purchased by the assessees was below the market value or had not made any enquiries with the owners of the land who sold the land to the assessees in order to establish that the assessee had paid amount over and above the value shown in the registered documents, thus it is apparent that the revenue had made addition only on the basis of surmises and conjunctions that the assessee would have paid Rs.2,80,000/- per bigha. The onus thrusts upon the revenue to prove its stand is not met as decided in K. P. Varghese Vs ITO (1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court). It is pertinent to note the decision of CIT Vs Naresh Khattar HUF (2003 (1) TMI 77 - DELHI High Court) wherein held that inference has to be drawn on the totality of the circumstance and not on any single fact while making addition u/s 69B. In favour of assessee.
|