TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended that the source of deposits was from agricultural income and later on he took another stand that it was out of the sale consideration received on sale of agricultural land. In support thereof no evidence was filed. Though the AO has asked the assessee to furnish the confirmation letters of the buyers or any other evidence in support thereof. At the instance of the assessee the buyer was also examined by the AO and she has categorically denied the payment over and above the sale consideration declared for the sale deed. Copy of the statement is also filed before us. Except the affidavit of the assessee in support of his contention, no other evidence is available on the basis of which an inference can be drawn in favour of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 50-C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut did not realize that the appellant (Mahavir Singh) share in total sale consideration was only half of it the rest half share belong to his brother. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut did not want through the statement of Mrs. Vijay Kumari (Vendee) recorded by the ITO. Mr. V.K. Nigam, carefully, where she has failed to reply the question that now she manage to buy the property worth of ₹ 15,63,000/- for mere ₹ 90,000/- only. She further failed to answer the question no. 12 that besides cheque/ draft of ₹ 90,000/- she also paid cash of ₹ 14,93,000/- to Mahavir Singh before two witnesses Sh. Pal Singh and Sh. Anil Singh, against the sale consideration of Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to explain and substantiate the source of cash deposits in the bank account and in response thereto, the assessee later on took a stand that the sale consideration of land sold for ₹ 1,80,000, as per the sale deed, was ₹ 15,83,000/- out of which only ₹ 1,80,000/- was received through demand draft and balance of ₹ 14,93,000/- was received in cash. It was further submitted that out of the aforesaid sale consideration assessee also purchased the another agricultural land for ₹ 13,32,000/-, although the sale consideration in this Deed was shown as lower price of ₹ 6,60,000/-. The assessee subsequently asked to explain and substantiate the claim of sale of agricultural land which was sold for ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 14,93,000/- on account of unexplained deposits in the bank. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed an affidavit in support of his contentions. The Ld. CIT(A) reexamined the issues, but was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and he accordingly confirmed the additions. 5. Now the assesee is before the Tribunal and reiterated his contentions. 6. It was contended on behalf of the assese that it is a general practice that market rate of the land are more than the declared value of the land in the sale deed. In support of his contentions he also filed a fresh affidavit reiterating its contentions. Besides, copy of the statement of Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so invited to the fact that undisputedly the assesee has jointly owned agricultural land, but the entire cash received, according to assessee, was of ₹ 14,93,000/- and was deposited in his bank account. With regard to the case laws relied upon by the assessee, Ld. DR has contended that all these case laws relate to the computation of Capital Gains where the issue in dispute is with regard to the actual sale consideration. So far as the judgment of Allahabd High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali (Supra) is concerned, the Ld. DR has contended that in that judgment detailed enquiry was made. Assessee has filed the confirmation of the witness to the Sale Deed and complaint to the Registrar was also made with regard to under valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso filed before us. Except the affidavit of the assessee in support of his contention, no other evidence is available on the basis of which an inference can be drawn in favour of the assessee. Affidavit of assessee is a self serving document, therefore, on the basis of affidavit, the additions made by the AO cannot be deleted. 9. We have also carefully examined the various judgments referred to by the assessee and we find that these judgments are rendered on computation of long term capital gains, but in those judgments there was no dispute with regard to sale consideration received by the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali (Supra), the dispute raised was with regard to actual sale consideration, but in that case assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
