Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1) , Race Course Circle, Baroda Versus Baldevsinh J. Parmar

2017 (2) TMI 733 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Onus of proving genuineness of the banakhat in question - income from other sources OR capital gains - Held that:- MOU stating the assessee to be in cultivating possession is neither supported by the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986 nor the sale deed dated 10.09.2008. There is further no evidence in the case file in the nature of form 7/12 that the assessee ever remained in cultivating possession of the lands sold. We observe in these peculiar facts that the assessee has failed to prove ver .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anakhat itself is in dispute between the parties. Once we have held the same to be not supported by any evidence, the relevant terms therein cannot be relied upon. We accordingly reject assessee’s contention. - Assessee's next argument that AO ought to have summoned the vendors in question in case he had any doubt about the banakhat in question finds no merit in this plea as well as the said vendors had already paid the amount in question to the assessee. They hardly had any further explanat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

neness of assessee’s claim to have entered into the above stated banakhat dated 16.12.1986. - Assessee contention that AO had erred in rejecting assessee’s explanation on the ground that the above stated banakhat was not a registered document is rendered academic as we have already held on merits that he has failed in proving veracity of the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986. We accordingly conclude that the Assessing Officer had rightly acted in treating the above sum received as incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12, allowing assessee s claim of having received the sum in question of ₹ 1,32,42,418/- in furtherance to an MOU dated 14.09.2009 executed with vendors of the capital asset in question as capital gains thereby reversing Assessing Officer s action treating the same as income from other sources in assessment order dated 27.12.2011, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. We straightway come to the relevant facts. The assessee acted as a confirming party i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the sum in question of ₹ 1,32,42,418/-. The assessee declared the same as capital gains. The Assessing Officer proceeded to examine details thereof in the course of scrutiny. The assessee quoted a banakhat dated 16.12.1986 between original land owners of the very land. His case was that this banakhat stated sale consideration of ₹ 10lacs involving advance money of ₹ 5lacs. He highlighted the fact that the above vendors and himself had arrived into the MOU hereinabove on 14.09.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of ₹ 5lacs so as to prove transfer of title, any right or interest thereupon. He also came across contents of the abovestated sale deed not stating any amount to have been paid to him for his role as a confirming party. All this made the Assessing Officer to treat the abovestated sum of ₹ 1,32,42,418/- as income from other sources instead of assessee s capital gains. 4. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) summarises Assessing Officer s two reasons of non registration of ban .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lanpur S.No. 450 ABC was never owned by the assessee but he was treated as "Confirming Party" both by the land owners as well as by the purchasers. There is no dispute of taxation of land at Sayajipura which was also sold during the year. 3.3.2. The objection raised by the A.O. is that the assessee was not the owner of the land at Kelanpur and, therefore, he cannot claim Capital Gain on the said of that land. The A.O. treated the amount of ₹ 1,31,42,418/- received by the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

suyaben B. Patel & Arunaben B. Patel. The Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of this very documents by observing that this is an afterthought of the assessee. Two grounds have been cited by him for reaching this conclusion. First observation is that the banakhat is not registered and is not even notarized. Secondly, according to the A.O., there is no proof of payment of Rs,5,00,000/- by the assessee to the land owners as claimed in the banakhat. So far as the registration of banak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the purchasers of the land also, who in the sale deed dated 10.09.2008 have acknowledged the same. lf there was any doubt in the mind of the A.O. about the genuineness of the banakhat, several options were open before him. He could have summoned the signatories of the documents i.e., the land owners and verified from them. Alternatively, the enquiry could have been made by deputing the inspector and recording the statements of the stamp vendor. In extreme case, matters like this are also refe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ke any enquiry from the signatories of banakhat, i.e., the landowners who had claimed to have received cash payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- from time to time. Under these circumstances, it is held that the banakhat dated 16.12.1986 between the assessee and the land owners i.e., Kalavatiben B. Patel, Shri Mahendra B. Patel, Anirudh B. Patel, Ashokbhai B. Patel, Dinesh B. Patel, Ansuyaben B. Patel & Arunaben B. Patel was a genuine documents and A.O's. observation that it was an afterthought .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

parkar (learned senior counsel) draws strong support from the CIT(A) s twin reasoning extracted hereinabove. He seeks to place vehement emphasize to assessee s plea that the assessing authority never summoned the above stated vendors so as to express any doubt over genuineness of his claim of having entered into the banakhat in question. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. The sole dispute between the parties is qua onus of proving genuineness of the banakhat in q .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be sold to the assessee/vendee for a sum of ₹ 10lacs out of which ₹ 5lacs had already been received till the said date i.e. 16.12.1986 as advance money. There is no quarrel that the parties did not quote any evidence of advance payment of ₹ 5lacs till the above stated MOU. Nor did they execute any sale deed for a time span of almost of 22 years. It is only in the relevant previous year i.e. 10.09.2011 wherein the very vendors sold the said agricultural lands to other vendees .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee to be in cultivating possession is neither supported by the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986 nor the sale deed dated 10.09.2008. There is further no evidence in the case file in the nature of form 7/12 that the assessee ever remained in cultivating possession of the lands sold. We observe in these peculiar facts that the assessee has failed to prove veracity/genuineness of the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986. We thus find force in Assessing Officer s observations on the latter a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted by any evidence, the relevant terms therein cannot be relied upon. We accordingly reject assessee s contention. 8. Shri Soparkar s next argument is that the Assessing Officer ought to have summoned the vendors in question in case he had any doubt about the banakhat in question. We find no merit in this plea as well as the said vendors had already paid the amount in question to the assessee. They hardly had any further explanation to make in view of their action making the payment in question .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version