TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f purchase of agriculture land and the actual purchase consideration paid thereon. Some copies of Registries contained actual sale consideration paid and the consideration shown in the sale deed. Statement of some parties were recorded. These statements revealed that the company has purchased agriculture land at higher value and sale deeds have been executed at lesser value. The AO in his order has referred to the statement of Shri Nagesh Bhaskar and Shjri Ram Kishor Jat. During the course of survey, statement of Shri Sunil Bansal, Director of the company was recorded. Incriminating documents found from the site office and other business places were confronted to him. He was also confronted with the statement of Shri Ram Kishore Jat and Shri Nagesh Bhaskar. The Director of the company admitted the fact that the company has made undisclosed investment in purchase of agriculture land wherein real transaction was recorded at a lesser value in the regular books of accounts. This fact was admitted by other Directors of the company namely Shri Atma Ram Gupta and Shri Vimal Singhvi. The director surrendered ₹ 5,57,72,494/- for financial year 2006-07 on account of undisclosed investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in per beegha disclosure in individual registries 1 2 3 4 4 (6) i.e. (5)-(3) 2006000787 khasra No. 1/1 Min 3 5 beegha Khasra No. 6/5 6 beegha (e) khasra No. 19/1 15 beegha Total 26 beegha 1 biswa ₹ 20,00,000 Rs.24,00,000/- ₹ 2,95,605/- 26 beegha 1 biswa X295605=77,00,510/- ₹ 53,00,510/- 2006001614 (a) Khasra No. 429/4 5 beegha 10 biswas (b khasra No. 432/1 4 beegha 13 biswa Total 3 biswa ₹ 20,00,000 ₹ 18,02,955/- 10 beegha 3 biswas x 18,02,955/- = 1,82,99,993/- ₹ 1,62,99,993/- In respect of registry numbers 2006000787, the purchase value paid over and above the consideration shown in the deed is ₹ 53,00,510/- while in annexure prepared by Director, excess consideration is ₹ 27,15,249/-. In respect of other registry No. 2006001614, these amounts are of ₹ 1,62,99,993/- and ₹ 40,60,976/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocess of making disclosure by the Directors. The written submissions were forwarded to the AO by the CIT(A) and the AO in his remand report reiterated as what was stated in the assessment order. Regarding the issue of questioning by the survey team, it was stated by the AO that impounded material can be examined during the assessment proceedings, the AO has given a categorical finding that Shri Mahesh Gupta, Accountant has made the entry on the Registry. Plea of the assessee that the noting on photocopy of registry is un-natural is an after thought. It was further submitted before the CIT(A) that the Director of the company prepared a statement indicating the details of various lands purchased, sale consideration as per sale deed, the amount shown in the books as advance against these lands over and above the sale consideration and the amount paid out of the books. The assessee in order to buy peace, offered ₹ 14.28 crores for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09. During survey, the survey team required Shri Mahesh Gupta, Accountant of the company to mention the rate of land per bigha on the photocopy of the registry. On two registries such rates were mentioned by him under sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fronted with these notings on the registries. The disclosure was not made on the basis of individual registry but khasra wise amount was worked out after considering all the material available at the time of survey. No other document about unrecorded payment was found and the disclosure is made on working given by the director. As the disclosure is not based on the evidence found during survey but statement recorded of the director and surrender made by him, there appears no justification in changing the basis for addition that too only for two of the registries impounded out of several such registries impounded. When on other registries there is no mention of the actual consideration paid over and above what has been recorded in the books still surrender was made in respect of these registries and, therefore, there is no justification for considering only two registries for addition over and above surrender made. Not only Shri Mahesh Gupta was not confronted by the survey team on the entries made but he was not even confronted by the AO during the assessment proceedings. If the entries made basis for addition then other registries impounded which have no such noting should not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the course of survey as per Section 292C of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that Mr. Mahesh Gupta on the request of the survey team made entry on the two registries to indicate the purchase rate per bigha. However, it has not been submitted by the assessee-company that the rate given by Shri Mahesh Gupta was wrong or incorrect. Once there is a document and there is presumption in law that the onus was on the assessee to have represented such presumption. No effort has been made to show that the price paid in respect of two purchase of the land in the registered deeds referred to above is as per annexure prepared by the Director at the time of survey. The fact that advance of ₹ 1,09,01,000/- was shown and it means that consideration over and above the consideration shown in deed and reflected in the statement prepared by Director is not correct. The Addl Commissioner in his directions has referred that an adjustment entry was made on 28.2.2008 i.e. after the survey. It clearly shows that surrender in respect of these two lands as per statement was doubtful. It is also true that the AO has also not made any effort to inquire about the rate of land per bigha which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
