TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of ₹ 45.00 lakh. Factor which weighs in accepting the registered sale deed over the Agreement is that the stamp value of the plot of land purchased by the assessee, as recorded in the impugned order, is ₹ 12.09 lakh, which is far away from the value given in the Agreement. - there are two buyers of the plot of land viz., the assessee and Mr. Nitin Navandar. The ld. DR was directed to give the status of the assessment in the case of Mr. Nitin Navandar for ascertaining if similar addition was made in his hands as well. On the next date of hearing, the ld. DR submitted that no addition has been made in the hands of Mr. Nitin Navandar. The registered sale deed needs to be acted upon in preference to the Agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of survey, which indicated the purchase price of the above mentioned land at ₹ 1.21 crore, for which a registered sale deed was executed with consideration of ₹ 45 lakh only. Thus, the AO inferred that the transaction was actually finalized for a consideration of ₹ 1.21 crore and a sum of ₹ 76.00 lakh was given as on-money which was unexplained investment. The assessee s one half share of ₹ 38.00 lakh was added as investment from undisclosed sources . The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order on this score, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the sides through Virtual Court and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amenities such as approach roads etc. Further, in response to question no.156, the assessee submitted that he purchased the said land along with Mr. Nitin Navandar for ₹ 45.00 lakh only which was recorded in the books of account as the approach road was not proper the value of the said property decided at lower rate, i.e. instead of ₹ 1.21 crore to 45 lacs . This shows that the assessee firmly denied the reality and genuineness of the Agreement dated 17-06-2010 during the course of survey itself. Despite that, the AO did not record statement of any of the buyers or witnesses to ascertain the veracity of the assessee s version. He simply kept quiet and did not consider it prudent to examine the witnesses. 5. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
