TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs shown in the sale deed dated 3rd January 1973 for the purposes of computation of capital gains has been objected to, inter alia, on the ground that no such amount was paid to her by the buyer who only with a view to purchase peace with the department, by way of an affidavit submitted during the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, disclosed the additional payment, as was evident from the contents of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings Shri Bishanlal when summoned by the Income-tax Officer stated that he had in fact paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 and not Rs. 3 lakhs. 5. The Income-tax Officer made an addition. On appeal, the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner vide order dated 31-10-1979 directed the Income-tax Officer to afford an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine Shri Bishanlal on this issue. In second innings S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative that factum of payment of Rs. 3,50,000 having been made by the purchaser as against the sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs as per the sale deed, the authorities below were justified in accepting the contention of Shri Bishanlal. Our reasons for disagreement are two-fold. Firstly, no enquiry has been made by the authorities below to find out the sources of Shri Bishanlal for testing the vera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs passed on from them to the appellant as sale consideration. 7. We are also not impressed by the contention raised by the learned Senior Departmental Representative that some money passes away over and above the sale consideration shown in a sale deed. Firstly we are not aware of any such practice and secondly even if in some stray cases it happens, it would be too risky to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
