9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- as unexplained investment in land. 2. In this case assessee filed her return showing total income of Rs. 2,03,240/-. While passing an assessment order Ld. A.O. has addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- of alleged unexplained investment in land. It was stated by the Ld. A.O. that assessee has purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 607 of Kudasan village, Dist-Gandhinagar for an amount of Rs. 51,00,000/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. A.O. asked to explain the alleged income in the so-called, as per purchase deed No. 2117 dtd. 03/03/2000 against the said quarry. However, Ld. A.O. was satisfied with the contention of the assessee and stated that once documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the purchaser is entered in registration book because only the purchaser was present in the office. A copy of the said letter was sent to Smt Shardaben G. Patel and Rajnikant G. Patel (Original land owners). Realizing the forge sale documents, Smt Shardaben G. Patel and Rajnikant G. Patel objected the sale-deed. But before it comes to anybody's knowledge, Shri Hares Kanaiyalal has misguided the Smt. Urmilaben J. Jadav and Rajesh Balubhai Patel and made them agree to purchase the said land. Smt. Urmilaben J. Jadav agreed to share 1/3rd of the total agreed consideration. 5. However, Smt. Urmilaben J. Jadav and Rajesh B. Patel were having some doubt looking to the behavior of Haresh Kanaiyalal. Therefore, it was agreed that Shri Haresh Kana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aben G. Patel and Rajnikant G. Patel has lodged the Special-Civil Complaint with the "Principal Civil Judge" - Gandhinagar having Civil-application No. 299/2011 asking the relief mentioned in the enclosed Civil application. A detailed history is narrated in the enclosed Special-Civil application. 9. The above facts and circumstances of the case, your good self is requested to drop the idea of making addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- on account of so-called sale-deed which was never executed in real sense. 10. Against the said order assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but to no avail and Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. A.O. 11. We have heard both the parties and gone through the impugned order and there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser; she was purported to be clearly 50% owner; no one can believe that she was entitled to such a benefit without spending a single rupee. We do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of the CIT. Hence, we would like to observe that once a registered statement is made before a Lawful authority it should normally be taken to be true. Here, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. 95 ITR 375 where it has observed that: "Tribunal is not expected to take judicial notice of such a sub-standard morality on part of assessee as to enable them to go back on their own sworn statements given to banks" No one should be allowed to blow hot and cold in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
