9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue involved in all these appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.25 of 2015. 3. ITA No.25 of 2015 has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 29.4.2011, Annexure A.11 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh 'A' Bench (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.978/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2001-02, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the signatory of the document can be a 'witness of himself', under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as the 'morphed/photocopy' document never produced for examination in adjudication proceedings, hence the action is contrary to 'chargeability of income under section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether the 'hypothetical income' can be brought to charge under section 5 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dehors the provisions of section 2(c) read with section 10 (Indian Contract Act, 1872), Section 5 (Transfer of Property Act, 1882), Section 17 (The Registration Act, 1908) and the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or rectification of the order dated 29.4.2011. Vide order dated 30.6.2014, Annexure A.14, the said application was dismissed. Hence the instant appeals by the appellant-assessees. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. A perusal of the findings recorded by the authorities below shows that three co-owners i.e. two brothers - Prashant Dutt Chaudhary & Vikrant Dutt Chaudary and their mother - Smt.Vijay Dutt Chaudhary had sold House No.146, Sector 8A, Chandigarh for consideration of Rs. 39 lacs in September 2000 in which share of each co-owner was shown at Rs. 13 lacs. The mother and the two sons had failed to furnish return of income on the ground that the income was below the taxable limit. However, Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department received tax evasion petition and enquiries were initiated against the three applicants. During the course of enquiries, the applicants were confronted with the photo copy of the receipt duly issued and signed by Smt.Vijay Dutt Chaudhary and her two sons Prashant Dutt Chaudhary and Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary as witnesses. As per the receipt, sum of Rs. 55 lacs was received as part payment towards sale of the house. The said recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Mrs. Harjinder Kaur on 15.9.2000. I or my sons Parshant and Vikrant have never signed any such receipt/document. The said document is a forged and frivolous document and signatures on such receipt are either forged or scanned from some other documents etc. and created just to harass me and my family members. As per that receipt the total consideration of sale of the H.No.146, Sector 8, Chandigarh is Rs. 93,00,000/-, Rs. 55,00,000/- were received on 15.9.2000 and Rs. 38,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of registry. Whereas I would like to point out that Rs. 9,90,000/- was received through Account payees cheques in June 2000/- as part payment and only Rs. 28,10,000/- were pending to be received on 15.9.2000 and that was received in October 2000. This shows that the said receipt is just a false document created without full knowledge of facts. Photo copy of such receipt does not define the status of Mrs. Vijay Chaudhary, Mr. Vikrant Chaudhary and Mr. Parshant Chaudhary. It shows that only Mrs. Vijay Chaudhary has taken the whole payment as seller and Mr. Parshant and Vikram Chaudhary are just witnesses. It nowhere shows them as co-owners. Sir, how is this possible that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as their signatures appearing on it. It is however, the case of the assessee that photostat copy of the receipt in the possession of the income tax department has no evidentiary value as the Assessing Officer is not in the possession of the said receipt in original. Therefore, the crucial issue that needs adjudication at the outset is whether photo copies of the relevant documents like the receipt in the present case can at all be taken into account, in the absence of the original documents, by the AO for making the assessment. It is true that photostat copies of the documents, in the absence of their original have little evidentiary value under the law of evidence. However, the relevant question is not whether photostat copies, in the absence of their original, have any evidentiary value under the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant question is whether the AO is at all required by the provisions of the IT Act to act on the basis of what is technically called "evidence" under the Indian Evidence Act. In our view, the issue is fairly well established. While making as assessment, the AO does not act merely on what is technically described as "evidence" in the Indian Evidence Act. It c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ney in cash. The name of the purchasers as also the date of receipt of the aforesaid sum of money are also mentioned in the receipt in unambiguous terms. The fact that the receipt carries signature of the recipient of the aforesaid money on the revenue stamp affixed on the receipt further establishes the genuineness of the contents of the receipt. If the AO had the original of the receipt in his possession and shown the same to the assessees, the assessees could have done no better than what they have done by seeing the photo copy of the receipt. Besides, the receipt is relevant to the fact in issue and establishes in unambiguous terms the receipt of Rs. 55 lakhs in cash over the apparent consideration. Secondly, the authenticity of the receipt, the authenticity of the signatures of the assessees on the receipt, and the fact that a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs was actually received by them in cash have been confirmed by the assessees in their respective statements recorded on oath by the ADIT (Inv.). In other words, the genuineness of the receipt and also the contents thereof are duly corroborated by all the assessees in their respective statements. It is not a case where the departmental a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
