TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s agent/guardian died in 1994. After his death, the LRs continued to contest the title and eventually the purchaser agreed to pay a further amount of ₹35 lakhs. The ITAT took note of several decisions, including CIT vs. Naveen Gera (2010 (8) TMI 194 - Delhi High Court) and K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer [1981 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] to show that the AO has to base his view with regard to under valuation, upon objective material. The intervening death of the original owner only aggravated the problem inasmuch as the LRs apparently refused to honour the agreement which eventually forced the purchaser to shell out the further amount mentioned in the original agreement even though substantial amounts had been paid earlier. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .M.P. Jain. The latter was occupying a portion, being tenant, since 1985. ₹ 20 lacs had been apparently paid by the purchaser by a cheque dated 27.04.1989. Some disputes arose which led to the filing of the suit by Sh.M.P.Jain, being Suit No.1345/1989 on the file of this Court. 3. During the course of the suit proceedings, apparently a compromise was arrived at and Sh.M.P.Jain paid further ₹10 lakhs by way of an Account Payee cheque dated 06.09.1989. A compromise application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was moved and the statement of parties was recorded. Sh. Gurdayal Singh died on 13.12.1994 and the original owner of the property Sh.Tarsem Singh died on 13.08.1996. This, however, did not resolve the entire issue because some di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o error in accepting that the settlement arrived at in 2006 was genuine. Learned counsel highlighted that the entire sequence of events disclosed that there was no dispute, and through the dispute the LRs sought to take advantage to contrive a compromise and to avoid tax. 6. This Court has carefully considered the records. It is evident that the ITAT took into consideration the suit for injunction filed by the purchaser Sh. M.P.Jain and the compromise statement dated 18.09.1989. It is also evident that despite the statement being recorded on 18.09.1989, title was not conveyed to the purchaser even though he continued to be in the possession of the property. It is matter of fact that original owner Sh.Tarsem Singh died in 1996; Sh.Gurda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
