Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 733 - AT - Income TaxOnus of proving genuineness of the banakhat in question - income from other sources OR capital gains - Held that:- MOU stating the assessee to be in cultivating possession is neither supported by the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986 nor the sale deed dated 10.09.2008. There is further no evidence in the case file in the nature of form 7/12 that the assessee ever remained in cultivating possession of the lands sold. We observe in these peculiar facts that the assessee has failed to prove veracity/genuineness of the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986. We thus find force in Assessing Officer’s observations on the latter aspect of the issue that the assessee had failed in proving any advance payment of ₹ 5lacs in question by way of any supportive material; whatsoever. Assessee's contention that the CIT(A) has rightly held the assessee to have proved the above stated banakahat indicating advance payment of ₹ 5lacs fails to concur because of the fact that the very banakhat itself is in dispute between the parties. Once we have held the same to be not supported by any evidence, the relevant terms therein cannot be relied upon. We accordingly reject assessee’s contention. Assessee's next argument that AO ought to have summoned the vendors in question in case he had any doubt about the banakhat in question finds no merit in this plea as well as the said vendors had already paid the amount in question to the assessee. They hardly had any further explanation to make in view of their action making the payment in question to the assessee. We further make it clear that there is no dispute about the fact as to whether or not the assessee has received the payment or not but the issue herein is about genuineness of his claim of having executed the banakhat dated 16.12.1986. We thus reject instant argument as well. We are of the opinion in given facts of the case that it is not the sale deed which is in dispute but the issue herein is about genuineness of assessee’s claim to have entered into the above stated banakhat dated 16.12.1986. Assessee contention that AO had erred in rejecting assessee’s explanation on the ground that the above stated banakhat was not a registered document is rendered academic as we have already held on merits that he has failed in proving veracity of the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986. We accordingly conclude that the Assessing Officer had rightly acted in treating the above sum received as income from other sources instead of capital gains in assessee’s computation. - Decided in favour of revenue
|