Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 965 - HC - Income TaxNature of income - income from other sources OR capital gains - sale of land by the owners to the new purchasers - proof of genuineness of the banakhat dated 16.12.1986 - Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was justified in disbelieving the entire transaction as projected by the assessee - Held that:- The agreement to sale is dated 16.12.1986. In such document, it is recited that the owners agreed to sale the land to the assessee for a sale consideration of ₹ 10 lakhs out of which ₹ 5 lakhs was paid. This agreement to sale is neither registered nor a notarized document and is executed on a stamp paper without any further authentication. Sum of ₹ 5 lakhs is stated to have been received by the land owners piecemeal over a period of time apparently in cash. Neither the dates nor any other details of such payments are mentioned. For over 22 years, the assessee did not assert his right to purchase the land nor did the sellers demand the remaining sale consideration. The sale deed dated 10.09.2008 does show the assessee as a confirming party, but does not refer to any payment made or to be made in lieu of his surrendering his rights under the agreement to sale. In the said deed though it is stated that the assessee was in possession and in cultivation of the land in question there is no other evidence including form no.7/12 of land registers of the Revenue record suggesting possession or cultivation of the assessee. The payment of ₹ 1.32 crores is stated to have been spread over a period of time, long after the sale deed was executed and is supposed to be backed by a document titled as mutual money transaction agreement. It is quite inconcieviable that a person who claims the right to purchase a land under an agreement would sign the sale deed in favour of a third party acting as a confirming party without his consideration for such purpose being either actually paid or even promised to be paid. Multiple factors noted above when seen cumulatively leaves little doubt that the Tribunal arrived at a factual finding which calls for no interference. No question of law therefore arises. - Decided against assessee.
|