TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished to the assessee also. The sums mentioned therein tallied with the contents of the statements as well as the bank statements of the sellers. The statements of the sellers were confirmed by the brokers and the events and facts are confirming each other. Revenue did the best it could do to find out the truth and the assessee denied himself an opportunity to wriggle himself out of the situation and such a conduct only shows that he is no good defence. Thus the authorities below are justified in reaching the conclusion that the sale consideration was ₹ 3,01,96,750/-and the unaccounted money of ₹ 2,58,24,044/- was paid by the assessee in cash to the sellers and such an amount is taxable in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.5257/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2018 - Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member And Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Barun Kumar Gupta, Advocate And Shri Alok Shukla, CA For the Revenue : Shri J.K. MishraCIT DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.7.2012 in Appeal No.25F/2008-09 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in conformity with each other and establish the fact that the land was purchased by the assessee @ R.24.5 lacs per acre for a total consideration of ₹ 3,01,96,250/-; that an advance of ₹ 30 lacs was paid at the time of agreement, out of which ₹ 28 lacas was in cash and ₹ 2 lacs by cheque; that the remaining amount of ₹ 2,71,96,250/- was paid directly by the assessee on 15.12.2005 to the sellers when the sale deed was registered; and that a compensation of ₹ 2.5 lacs was also paid to the sellers for crops and tube wells located in the land. 6. Learned AO, thereupon, required the assessee to reveal the source of unaccounted investment of ₹ 2,58.24,044/- for purchase of land but the assessee has never furnished the details, as such, notice u/s 142(1) dated 2.7.2008 was issued to the assessee. Assessee contended that the land of 98 K 12 M was purchased in the name of Bankey Behari Educational Trust on 15.12.2008 for a total consideration of ₹ 49,22,706/- and the land measuring 7.5 acres was purchased for ₹ 21,98,000/-. Assessee further contended that there is no reason for the assessee to put his undisclosed income and resources ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any grievance of the same. 9. Learned CIT(A) further recorded that the oral evidence of the witnesses is well corroborated by the calculation on the slips and the entire issue stood properly confronted by the learned AO. In respect of the decisions in the case of Paramjit Singh vs ITO, 323 ITR 588 and CIT vs Babulal Jivanlal Patel (Guj), the learned CIT(A) stated that the facts of those cases are different from the facts of the case on hand, and the oral evidence was corroborated by the evidence in the form of piece of paper purchased at the time of recording statements of the witnesses. On a perusal of all the facts involved in this matter and in the light of the statement of the witnesses, learned CIT(A) reached a conclusion that the learned AO rightly made the addition in the hands of the assessee and confirmed the same. 10. Assessee is, therefore, in this appeal before us stating that the learned AO wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Incometax Act, 1961 in the absence of any incriminating evidence and the learned CIT(A) committed an error in confirming the same. 11. It is the argument of the learned AR that when nothing was recovered during the searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses. 14. Learned DR submitted that the issue in this matter is not as to who purchased the land, but the crux of the issue for the purpose of tax law is as to whose taxable income went in payment of the unexplained sale consideration. When such an issue is dealt with in the light of the statements of the sellers as well as the brokers corroborated by the piece of paper containing the calculations of sale consideration, the assessee cannot assail the same stating that the impugned addition was made merely on the basis of statement of two of the sellers of the land. Learned DR submitted that having not availed the opportunity to substantiate the contention that it is unexplained money of the sellers alone that was deposited in their bank account, the assessee cannot now take such a plea. For these reasons, the learned DR prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and learned DR and also gone through the record. As rightly recorded by the learned CIT(A), there is no dispute as to the purchase of 12.5 acres of land by M/s Bankey Behari Charitable Trust on 15.12.2005 under the sale de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he enquiry in the presence of both the parties so that the Revenue can reach a definite conclusion as to include hands such money has to be taxed. By the time the Department was in possession of the evidence in the shape of the statements of the sellers and brokers supported by the entries of the slip calculating the sale consideration. Assessee disputed the veracity of the statements and the genuineness of the calculation slip. In the circumstances nothing no other way was left to the authorities but to test the veracity of the statements in the cross examination by the assessee so that the truth could be reached. 18. Originally the statements of the sellers were recorded on 02/11/2006 and those of the brokers were on 10/11/2006. The assessment order speaks that the assessee was provided opportunity twice by the DDIT (Inv) to cross-examine the persons whose statements had been recorded. Learned assessing officer proceeded further to examine the sellers on oath on 12/09/2008. Assessee was provided an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but he failed to do so. During the 1st appellate proceedings, by way of remained proceedings, learned assessing officer was required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the process. 21. Ld. CIT(A) recorded that it cannot be said that the assessee was not aware of the progress India played proceedings as attendance was quite regular and copies of the remand report s were given to him for necessary rejoinders, which is complied with and issuance and proper service of summons/letters for cross-examination experiment stage is therefore not in dispute. It makes the things clear that for the reasons best known to the assessee he had chosen not to avail the opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses so as to clear his claim that he was not the source of the cash paid for the land, and importantly the allegations were not correct and were false. Ld. CIT(A) is justified in recording that any prudent man, if alleged to have been the culprit of an action which he denies vehemently, will definitely make all concerted efforts to right the wrong and he would have grabbed the opportunity afforded to him to disprove the findings of the learned assessing officer or the statements of the sellers and brokers by making himself available to cross-examine the witnesses. 22. It is, therefore, not a case of not providing an opportunity for cross-examination to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
