TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any further authentication. Sum of ₹ 5 lakhs is stated to have been received by the land owners piecemeal over a period of time apparently in cash. Neither the dates nor any other details of such payments are mentioned. For over 22 years, the assessee did not assert his right to purchase the land nor did the sellers demand the remaining sale consideration. The sale deed dated 10.09.2008 does show the assessee as a confirming party, but does not refer to any payment made or to be made in lieu of his surrendering his rights under the agreement to sale. In the said deed though it is stated that the assessee was in possession and in cultivation of the land in question there is no other evidence including form no.7/12 of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse in holding that the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness of the banakhat dated 16.12.1986? 2. The short issue pertains to the addition of ₹ 1.32 crores (rounded off) made by the Assessing Officer in case of the assessee for the assessment year 200910. In the return filed by the assessee for the said year, he had shown a receipt of ₹ 1.32 crores arising out of sale of longterm capital asset. The assessee had claimed adjustment of the indexed cost of acquisition and investments made from the said proceeds in specified bonds. We are however not concerned with such calculations of the assessee. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the MOU in question dated 14.09.2009 had been rightly rejected in course of assessment proceedings to be lacking any cogent evidence. Shri Soparkar (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 question dated 16.12.1986 stated to be executed by the assessee/vendee with the owner of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 aspect of the issue that the assessee had failed in proving any advance payment of ₹ 5 lacs in question by way of any supportive material; whatsoever. 5. From the materials on record, it can be seen that the entire issue revolves around the genuineness of the banakhat and the alleged payment of ₹ 1.32 crores to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d suggesting possession or cultivation of the assessee. V. The payment of ₹ 1.32 crores is stated to have been spread over a period of time, long after the sale deed was executed and is supposed to be backed by a document titled as mutual money transaction agreement. It is quite inconcieviable that a person who claims the right to purchase a land under an agreement would sign the sale deed in favour of a third party acting as a confirming party without his consideration for such purpose being either actually paid or even promised to be paid. 6. Multiple factors noted above when seen cumulatively leaves little doubt that the Tribunal arrived at a factual finding which calls for no interference. No question of law therefore arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
