TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act are not satisfied then the AO can invoke the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Act. Hence the decision relied on by the ld.AR of the assessee in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari vs ACIT (supra) cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the AO has stated in the reasons recorded that the documents were seized and forwarded by the AO of the searched person. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. Thus the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. Addition on account of the amount received for transfer of an immovable property - HELD THAT:- Where the assessee is also a party to the illegal transaction of purchase and sale of the land in question then the alleged stand of the assessee of subsequent cancellation of the agreement does not inspire confidence. It is pertinent to note that the assessee claimed to have purchased this property in question vide sale deed dated 29-10-2010 for a consideration of ₹ 4.00 lacs only whereas the said plot of land was sold by the assessee vide agreement dated 25-12-2011 for a considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Year 2012-13 declaring total income of ₹ 1,67,470/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 16-02-2017 by recording the reason that the assessee vide agreement dated 25-12-2011 transferred an immovable property bearing Plot No. A- 425, Tara Nagar, A, Sector 15, Khatipura Road, Jaipur for a consideration of ₹ 38.50 lacs and the said transaction has not been shown in the return of income. The ld.AR of the assessee further submitted that alleged agreement dated 25-12-2011 was found during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Narendra Singh. Thus the ld.AR of the assessee contended that the provisions of Section 147/148 cannot be invoked when the agreement to sell, which is the basis of reassessment, was found during the course of search and seizure action. In support of his contentions, the ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this tribunal in ITA No. 425/JP/2017 dated 13-12-2017 in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari vs ACIT. Thus the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that reassessment of a person other than searched person based on seized material can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment dated 25-12-2011 for a consideration of ₹ 38.50 lacs. The assessee has not disputed the execution of the said agreement dated 25- 12-2011. However, subsequently, the assessee has claimed that the said agreement was cancelled, though during the assessment proceedings, nothing has been produced before the AO in support of the claim that agreement was cancelled subsequently. It is pertinent to note that it is a case of mischief and forgery on the part of certain persons including the assessee whereby the Plot in question was originally allotted to one Smt. Madhu Bala Jain by Mutual Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. was subsequently transferred by one Shri Jabbar Singh Rathore by executing the sale deed dated 29-10-2010 in favour of the assessee for a consideration of ₹ 4.00 lacs. This matter was finally reported to Jaipur Development Authority (for short JDA ) as well as the concerned authority regarding the forged documents prepared by these persons particularly by Shri Jabbar Singh Rathore and the matter was then referred to the Arbitrator. The documents of sale deed dated 29-10-2010 and execution of agreement dated 25-12-2011 are not in dispute. Therefore, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not asked any question about the consideration amount in the agreement. Thus the ld.AR of the assessee contended that when the AO has recorded the statement of one Shri Laxman Yadav during remand proceedings then the additional evidences produced by the assessee ought to have been admitted, in support of his claim that the alleged agreement dated 25-12- 2-2011 was cancelled subsequently on 25-01-2012 and there was no exchange of sale consideration. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the agreement dated 25-12-2011 states that the assessee received full consideration of ₹ 38.50 lacs at the time of signing of the said agreement. Therefore, the subsequent stand of the assessee that he has not received the consideration and consequently the agreement was cancelled is nothing but a self serving document prepared to avoid the tax liability. The ld. DR has further contended that alleged cancellation agreement is a self serving document of the assessee as well as other party in whose hands also the addition of the said amount was made on account of unexplained investment. The ld. DR has contended that the alleged cancellation agreement was neither found during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven not referred during the course of assessment proceeding and it is surfaced first time after the assessment order was completed by the AO . This clearly shows that this is an afterthought manufactured document in support of the claim of non-receipt of sale consideration. The agreement which was found during the course of search is not in dispute and leaves no scope of any inference or possibility against non-receipt of sale consideration as the said agreement states in clear terms that entire sale consideration was received at the time of agreement and the possession was handed over to the buyer. Accordingly, in the facts of the case, where the assessee is also a party to the illegal transaction of purchase and sale of the land in question then the alleged stand of the assessee of subsequent cancellation of the agreement does not inspire confidence. It is pertinent to note that the assessee claimed to have purchased this property in question vide sale deed dated 29-10-2010 for a consideration of ₹ 4.00 lacs only whereas the said plot of land was sold by the assessee vide agreement dated 25-12-2011 for a consideration of ₹ 38.50 lacs. In the absence of any development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
