Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 241 - ITAT AMRITSARReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition of on-money received by the assessee on sale of land - whether or not the lower authorities are right in law and the facts of the case in acting upon the copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008, for concluding, that the assessee had sold the land in question for a consideration of ₹ 7.19 crore (approx.), as therein stated, and not for the consideration as stated in the registered sale deed, dated 08.10.2008, and thus, had received an earnest money of ₹ 1.50 crore on 25.02.2008 i.e during the year under consideration? - HELD THAT:- We are unable to subscribe to the standalone reliance placed by the lower authorities on the contents of the uncertified copy of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the sale consideration disclosed in a registered sale deed has to be accepted to have been received by the seller, and once the said registered document contains all the terms and conditions, then, no oral evidence is permissible to be given in an attempt to prove that the consideration disclosed in the said registered document had not changed hands. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Paramjit Singh [2010 (2) TMI 262 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view, that the sale consideration qua the transaction of sale of land in question, as disclosed in the registered sale deed, dated 08.10.2008, could not have been dislodged by the A.O on the basis of the contents of an uncertified copy of an “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008, which on the basis of our aforesaid observations would not even be in the nature of a secondary evidence within the meaning of Sec. 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Deposits in bank account of assessee's husband - The observations of the A.O that the cash deposits in the bank accounts of Shri. Kulwant singh (Assessee's husband) were sourced from the on-money that was received by the assessee, being devoid and bereft of any substance and, being nothing short of an allegation in the thin air, cannot be subscribed on our part. We, thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations vacate the observations of the A.O that the alleged on-money received by the assessee on sale of the land in question was deposited by her in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh (supra). Circle rate of the property - Assessee from, viz. the circle rate of the property in question that was prevailing at the time of execution of the sale deed; and the rate at which an adjoining piece of land during the relevant period was sold, undeniably had a strong bearing in not only proving that the land in question was sold as per the consideration disclosed in the registered sale deed, but was also indispensably instrumental in proving the falsity of the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008, and the contents thereof. We, thus, are not inclined to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities that the aforesaid circle rate and the comparative sale transaction had no bearing on the adjudication of the issue in hand. Suppressed sale consideration/on-money as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s 69 - Receipt of on-money cannot be brought within the meaning of unexplained investment. But then, on a careful perusal of the assessment order, we find, that the A.O had triggered the provisions of Sec. 69, for the reason, that the assessee had deposited the on-money in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh. However, as we have already vacated the view taken by the lower authorities that the alleged amount of on-money received by the assessee was parked in the bank accounts of her husband, viz. Shri. Kulwant Singh, therefore, the applicability of Sec. 69 of the Act is ousted on the said count itself. Be that as it may, as we have already vacated the addition made by the A.O on the basis of the contents of the uncertified copy of a “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008, which has been held by us as a dumb document that could not have been acted upon by the A.O, therefore, we refrain from adverting any further qua the validity of invocation of Sec. 69 We, herein, holding the “agreement to sell”, dated 25.02.2008 as a dumb document, thus, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and vacate the addition of ₹ 1.50 crore (supra) made by the A.O.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|