TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quent agreement to sell dated 03.02.2000 also. In the light of this overwhelming material brought on record the AO was fully justified in disbelieving the subsequent agreement dated 03.02.2000. Similarly, the far-fetched plea taken by the assessees that their signatures on the agreement to sell dated 14.10.1999 were obtained without disclosing its contents to them, cannot be accepted. The decisions relied upon by the appellants have no bearing on the point in issue - assessee's plea regarding second agreement to sell dated 03.02.2000 or the agreed sale consideration amounting to Rs. 16 lacs only, was disbelieved concluding that the assessees had made an undisclosed payment of Rs. 65.80 lacs to the sellers and both of them had invested Rs. 43,86,667/- out of their undisclosed income - against assessee. - IT Appeal NO. 54 OF 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 21-11-2012 - SURYA KANT AND R.P. NAGRATH, JJ. Akshay Bhan for the Appellant. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This order shall dispose of four appeals bearing ITA Nos. 54 to 57 of 2012 out of which ITA Nos. 54 55 of 2012 are at the instance of the husband (Arun Kumar Goyal) while ITA No. 56 57 of 2012 are by his wife (Sm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n possession of the Estate Officer. Hence the realizable price of the property was very low. The assessees asserted that the sale consideration of Rs. 85 lacs was a fake entry made by JD Gupta in the 'agreement to sell' dated 14.10.1999 for his personal gains and without giving any sanctity to the said agreement, the parties in fact bound themselves down with a fresh agreement on 03.02.2000 depicting the agreed sale consideration of Rs.16 lacs. The appellant-assessees also explained that though they were in possession of the property and had been receiving its rental income since February, 2000 yet they had to approach the Civil Court and it was pursuant to the decree passed in their favour that a Local Commissioner was appointed who got the sale deed executed on 13.02.2002 for a sale consideration of Rs. 12.80 lacs. Thereafter only that the said JD Gupta lodged a false complaint with the Income Tax Authorities which led to the issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act to the assessees. 4. The Assessing Officer (in short, 'the AO') vide order dated 17.03.2006 for the Assessment Year 2003-04 held that the assessees themselves have accepted the execution of 'agreement to sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 245 and two decisions of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur [2009] 311 ITR 38; and Paramjit Singh v. ITO [2010] 323 ITR 588, to urge that:- (i) where the assessee and the alleged recipient have denied transfer of money between them, no contrary inference could be drawn unless the material on record says otherwise; (ii) re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated unless the AO on examination of the information received is personally satisfied of escaped income; and (iii) no oral evidence contrary to the terms of a document is admissible, hence the sale consideration shown in a registered sale deed cannot be doubted or substituted on the basis of oral evidence. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessees and gone through the record. 8. Section 147 of the Act enables the AO to assess or re-assess any income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. Such a recourse is available to the AO before the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year if for whatever reason he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. The first proviso to Section 147 further confers juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for re-assessment of the escaped income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) has explained and laid down that under the substituted Section 147 "existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to re-open the assessment". It was further held that "so long as the ingredients of Section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under Section 147 and failure to take steps under Section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate re-assessment proceedings even when intimation under Section 143(1) had been issued". 13. The expression "reason to believe" thus cannot be restrictively construed to say as if the AO is obligated firstly to finally ascertain the factum of escaped income on the basis of admissible evidence and then only to issue show cause to the assessee. The Supreme Court held that the final outcome of the proceedings initiated under Section 147 is not relevant and what is of relevance is the existence of reasons to make the AO believe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
