TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 authorities are acting merely on the basis of photo copy of the receipt. Thirdly, and more importantly, the assessees have not placed any evidence on record to rebut the contents of the receipt or even the contents of their statements. In this factual setting, we are unable to hold that the said receipt is irrelevant material for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 17 (The Registration Act, 1908) and the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899? 4. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record of ITA No.25 of 2015 may be noticed. The property in dispute i.e. H.No.146, Sector 8 Chandigarh was sold by Vijay Dutt Chaudhary (mother), Prashant Dut Chaudhary (son) and Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary(son) through registered sale deeds dated 29.9.2000 for an amount of ₹ 39 lacs (Rs. 13 lacs each) vide receipt dated 15.9.2000, Annexure A.1. Report of ADI (Inv.) dated 11.3.2004 Annexure A.4 was forwarded to the DIT(Inv.) which formed the basis of initiation of reassessment proceedings. Notice dated 19.7.2006 was issued and served on the assessee under section 148 of the Act for initiation of re-assessment proceedings and on the basis of the reasons recorded, the appellant filed his income tax return on 5.11.2007. On 5.11.2007 and 15.11.2007, the appellant furnished written pleadings before the Assessing Officer stating that he, his brother and mother never signed any receipt/document qua ₹ 55,00,000/-; signatures were either forged/morphed from some other document; ₹ 9,90,000/- were received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witnesses. As per the receipt, sum of ₹ 55 lacs was received as part payment towards sale of the house. The said receipt was dated 15.9.2000 and carried the signatures of Smt.Vijay Dutt Chaudhary on the revenue stamp affixed thereon and signatures of both the sons as witnesses. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order observed that in the return of income the assessee claimed to have received ₹ 13 lacs as 1/3rd share of the sale consideration on the sale of the house in question. However, the ADIT(Inv.) was in possession of receipt dated 15.9.2000 which had been signed by assessee's mother and witnessed by Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary and Prashant Chaudhary. The said receipt is relevant to the fact in issue and establishes in unambiguous terms the receipt of ₹ 55 lakhs in cash over the apparent consideration. The ADIT (Inv.) recorded the statements of Vijay Chaudhary and Prashant Chaduahry who confirmed the receipt of ₹ 55 lacs by them in cash for the sale of the property in question. In so far as retraction of statement of Prashant Chaudhary and Vijay Chaudhary is concerned as not having signed the receipt, a close examination of the handwriting on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 proposed buyer would make such a heavy payment without taking the consent of two other co-owners? This does not show that other co owners have taken any amount. This further cements the facts that this very receipt is just a figment of imagination and just created to harass us and waste the precious time of Income tax department. The receipt is incomplete and imaginary is further confirmed by the fact that proposed buyers and sellers have not identified fully as to their father's name and address. There is also no reference to any agreement to sell made for that purpose. This proves that the fact is just a crude receipt created by some childish brain and even the spelling of word receipt are shown as receipt in that. I request that original document should be shown to me for my verification and signature verification from forensic laboratory should please be carried out to confirm that signatures on that receipt are a forged one. Ageing of handwriting, Ageing of paper used for such recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 can well be seen from sections 142 and 143 of the IT Act that the AO may also act on the relevant material which he has gathered for the purpose of making assessment. In common parlance, the expression material would cover anything that may have influence or effect on the decision or the merits of the case. The very use of the word material in section 143(3) clearly shows that the AO is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and the like and that he may act on material which may not, strictly speaking, be accepted as evidence in a court of law. Though the aforesaid proposition is well brought out by sections 142 and 143 and therefore no authority is needed to support them, there is nevertheless series of authorities laying down the proposition that an Assessing Officer can act on such materials and information, which are not strictly evidence under the Evidence Act. They are e.g. Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO, 134 ITR 119, 130, 131 (Raj.), Additional CIT vs. Jay Enginee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
