TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. The assessee was a party to a tripartite agreement between his friend Shri S. Metturam Reddy, Shri B. Janardhan representing M/s. Radha Soami Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mossarambagh, Hyderabad and the assessee. In the accounting year in question which ended by 31-3-1982, Shri Metturam Reddy along with his three sons was the owner of 14 acres 8 guntas of land situated in Survey No. 155 of Thokatta Village, Secunderabad Taluq, Hyderabad District which is within the Cantonment limits. The said land fell to the share of Shri S. Mettu Ram Reddy by means of a family settlement deed dated 11th December 1939 which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in its judgment passed in C.S. No. 19 of 1958 and O.S.A. No. 3 of 1960. In another suit O.S. No. 76 of 1972 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad the total extent of 14 acres 8 guntas was allotted to the four vendors as follows : Acres Guntas Vendor No. 1 (B. Mettu Rama Reddy) 0 34 Vendor No. 2 (B.V. Ramesh Reddy) 7 06 Vendor No. 3 (B.V. Suresh Reddy) 4 00 Vendor No. 4 (B.V. Satyanarayana Reddy) 2 08 -------- ------- Total 14 08 -------- ------- They have executed an agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defendant No. 7 society. Defendant No. 7 in the suit is M/s. Radhasoami Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Defendants 1 to 4 are Shri B. Metturam Reddy and his three sons. 5. The case of the revenue is that Shri B. Metturam Reddy is a thick friend of the assessee. The assessee acted as a mediator in the sale transaction between Metturam Reddy and M/s. Radhasoami Co-operative Housing Society Limited. For conducting mediation, the stipulation was that the assessee should be entitled to Rs. 12.50 per sq.yd. from M/s. Radhasoami Co-operative Housing Society. On 17-9-1981, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid to the assessee on behalf of M/s. Radhasoami Co-operative Housing Society out of which the assessee refunded a sum of Rs. 32,000. The receipt which is later marked as G-9 was issued by the assessee on 17-9-1981 to the said effect. The assessee gave an account of how he spent the whole of Rs. 1 lakh given to him in his own hand in a small piece of paper later marked as G-1 on 3-11-1981. G-1 and G-9 were admittedly in the handwriting of the assessee. The assessee had been carrying on the business in purchase and sale of plots for a number of years. He acquired definite skill and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties 15 acres were to be transferred, ultimately only 4 acres of land were transferred and out of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 32,000 was returned in October 1981 but the balance was not returned. The contents of this statement was made known to the assessee. Although the assessee denied knowledge of the tripartite agreement, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that his involvement in the deal contemplated therein was admitted. The deal as contemplated was gone through although in a small measure and in that connection, the assessee was paid certain amounts. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the application of the sum of Rs. 1 lakh has been authenticated by the assessee on two different occasions on which statements have been recorded from him. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that during the course of assessment proceedings both the material sought to be relied on for assessment as well as the subject-matter of enquiry were within full knowledge of the assessee. If really the material likely to be relied upon by the revenue for completing the assessment ran contrary to the actual state of affairs, then the assessee had ample time at his disposal to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Shri B. Janardhan was examined by the Assessing Officer on 6-2-1985 itself. If it is a fact that the whole of Rs. 1 lakh was taken away on one pretext or the other from the assessee, he would have stated so in his deposition on 6-2-1985. However, he did not do so. In his deposition Shri B. Janardhan had clearly stated that the sum of Rs. 32,000 only was refunded and the balance was not paid back. He also went on to say that the Co-operative Society has written off the balance by adjusting against the purchase consideration for 4 acres of land through a resolution passed by the society. From this evidence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deduced that it would clearly show that the assessee had in effect received Rs. 68,000 by way of commission from out of which he had spent Rs. 18,000 on travelling and deducting Rs. 5,000 towards estimated possible expenses, Rs. 45,000 remained as the commission received by him. When that is the inescapable conclusion which one can reach on the strength of the evidence given by Shri B. Janardhan himself on 6-2-1985, simply because in 1987 which is two years after his examination by the Income-tax Officer he gives an affidavit, does it carry an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 recorded by the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner, Range-II, Hyderabad from the assessee was provided. Had it been a fact that he had given away the impugned amount of Rs. 45,000 also towards court expenses, he would be the first person to come forth with the said version. On the other hand, question Nos. 6, 7, 8 9 and the answers given thereunder which are very crucial are as follows : "Q. 6. Please explain the entry 'to Delhi Rs. 18,000'. Ans. This must be the expenditure for going to Delhi for obtaining permission from Cantonment Board for the land of Shri B. Metturam Reddy. Q. 7. The next entry is 'kept Rs. 30,000'. This entry was scored off. Please explain. Ans. I cannot say what this is. Q. 8. The next entry is 'so far taken Rs. 66,000'. Will you please explain. Ans. I do not know. Q. 9. On the other side of the paper the entries are 'To be taken Rs. 1,80,000 Rs. 66,000 ------------------------------------ Later Rs. 1,14,000' ------------------------------------ Please explain Ans. I do not know." The answers given by the assessee would clearly show that he must have received some commission and he definitely acted as a mediator who undertook th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
