Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 347 - AT - Income TaxAddition on sale of land - unexplained investment - evidence of cash deposits in the bank account - Held that:- In view of the circumstantial evidence collected by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and both the examination by the Assessing Officer and the cross-examination of Shri Rajansingh undertaken by the assessee, wherein he admitted to the cash receipts on the sale of his agricultural land, no further queries were raised by the assessee, then the said “Kararnama” and the circumstantial evidence of cash deposits in the bank account establishes the case of Revenue. The affidavit of assessee as to not having paid any other amount other than ₹ 2 lakhs mentioned in the sale deed is a self serving document and cannot be relied on especially in view of statement of purchasers having accepted cash against the sale of his land. The said land was admittedly sold for ₹ 30 lakhs and now after period of two months, the same cannot be sold only for ₹ 2 lakhs in the agreement. There is no merit in the plea of assessee in this regard. Reliance placed upon the other sale transactions in the area is not correct, especially where the case under consideration is of cash payment over and above the price declared in the sale deed. The CIT(A) has elaborately referred to each of the issues raised by the assessee and has also made reference to the statements in the cross-examination of various persons and the affidavit of assessee. Upholding the order of CIT(A) the claim of assessee is dismissed. One aspect which needs to be emphasized is the receipt of ₹ 5 lakhs along with “Kararnama” which is a document found and considered by the authorities below as against the statement of Shri Ayub that he did not pay anything. In case, he was not party to the transaction, then there was no necessity for him to bgrounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed.ecome consenting party to the sale deed between Shri Rajansingh and the assessee. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, addition of ₹ 28,88,125/- is upheld. - Decided against assessee.
|