TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not point out any binding precedent wherein it has been held that the oral statement would over ride the documentary evidence. Therefore, respectfully following the case above We are of the view that the AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law. It is also not placed on record whether the sale deed was executed under coercion. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 467/JP/2011, ITA No. 519/JP/2011 - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituation and the circumstances of the appellant and therefore, he should have held that the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav cannot be considered as base for carrying out the impugned addition. 1.3. In law and on the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO having provided an opportunity to the appellant for cross examination has failed to consider the facts and evidences arising there from hence, the very opportunity of providing cross examination was not met. He should have thus deleted the very addition on this count. 1.4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that once the cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act) on 19/11/2007 requiring him to furnish return of income within 35 days. The requisite return was filed. The assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153 of the Act was framed thereby the AO made addition of ₹ 42,27,000/- as undisclosed investment. The addition was made on the basis that one of the sellers Shri Hanuman Yadav who appeared before the AO and submitted that the sale consideration of the land was ₹ 35,00,000/- as against ₹ 4,48,670/- declared by the assessee. Further the AO also observed that the assessee had purchased 10 bighas land from Shri Madan Singh in Phagi for ₹ 4,15,000/- as per the sale deed. However, in the statement recorded on 23.05.2007, Shri Madan Singh stated that he had so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the issue has followed the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. T.R. Verma 1957 SC 882 and also in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC). Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has also followed the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588. It is also submitted by the ld. Counsel that the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the seller of land was having dispute with the assessee and was black mailing the assessee. In support of this contention, the ld. Counsel submitted that a recorded voice was placed before the AO. 5.1. On the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would over ride the documentary evidence. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal (supra), we are of the view that the AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law. It is also not placed on record whether the sale deed was executed under coercion. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition. This ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed. 6. Now we come to the revenue s appeal in ITA No. 519/JP/2011. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
