TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction was negotiated by her brothers. It held that there was no document or material to show that the respondent actually paid ₹ 1.65 crores for the purchase of the property and the Revenue had drawn inferences based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITTA No.563 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2012 - SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO PET.ADV. : NARASIMHA SARMA RESP.ADV. : SRINIVAS JUDGMENT (Per Hon ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) challenging the order dt. 31-03-2011 in I.T.A.No.1504/Hyd/2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above property in her name, that she did not know the actual consideration paid for the purchase, that the cheque amounts of ₹ 65.00 lakhs are paid her but she has no knowledge of the cash amount of ₹ 1.00 crore. Her brother K.V.Srirama Murthy also gave a statement dt.20-11- 2007 stating that the above property was purchased in 2002 and only ₹ 65.00 lakhs was paid and there was no cash payment at all. 6. However, Smt. K.Rajani Kumari, in her return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153-C admitted the sale consideration to be ₹ 1.40 crores as against the entries recorded in the seized diary of ₹ 1.65 crores. 7. The assessing officer in his order 23- 12-2009 held that the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Radha Krishna Kumar; that it was a loose slip containing certain entries which was not in the handwriting of the respondent; that it does not contain either date of payment or the name of the person who made the payment; that the name of the respondent was not found in the loose sheet and only the names of C.Radha Krishna Kumar and his wife K.Radha Kumari were found therein. It opined that there was no basis for the Revenue to presume that the respondent had made the cash payment of ₹ 1.00 crore even though the registered sale deed dt.21- 08-2006 in respect of the above sale transaction disclosed only a cheque payment of ₹ 65.00 lakhs by the respondent. Even if the vendor K.Rajani Kumari admitted receipt of sale consideration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch payment of ₹ 1.00 crore in cash can be drawn on the basis of an entry found in a diary/loose sheet in the premises of C.Radha Krishna Kumar which is not in the respondent s handwriting and which did not contain the name of the respondent or any date of payment or the name of the person who made the payment. It rightly held that the Revenue failed to establish the nexus of the seized material to the respondent and had drawn inferences based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises which cannot take the place of proof. We also agree with the Tribunal that the assessing officer did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to the value of the property purchased and the burden of proving the actual consideration in the purchase of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
