TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 872, which prohibits admission of oral evidence to contradict the contents of a contract reduced into writing and registered as per law subject to certain exceptions like fraud, misrepresentation, etc. Such approach of the Ld. CIT(A) can not be justified and approved. He was required to examine the veracity of the unregistered documents by way of verification from the witnesses, Sh. Kavar Jeet Singh, Purchaser of Agricultural land, and prevailing market value of the land in the neighborhood/ vicinity. AR, contention that details required by the CIT(A) were submitted but same was not taken on record by him. Considering the ld. AR contentions that the assessee s additional evidence be considered by the CIT(A) with independent application of mind to the facts of the case and verification of the respective witnesses,purchaser of land and factual field verification would reveal the actual sale consideration and in turn the actual amount of sale consideration received by the assessee. Considering the principles of natural justice, in our view, the assessee should get one more chance to prove its case before the Ld. CIT(A) - Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical Purpose. - I.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was sold for ₹ 23,26,000/- The sale consideration is stated in the registered deed to have been received through two cheques. ₹ 11,63,000/- each. The AO required the assessee to produce the buyer Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh S/o Sh Kuldeep Singh. However, the assessee failed to produce him on the given date 22 03.16. In view of above, Ld AO held that only the registered sale deed was to be considered and sacrosanct Cash credits of ₹ 54,16,960/- were held to be income from undisclosed sources. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing thatin this case, a validly executed and duly registered sale deed dated 11/05/2007 has come on record which is sought to be disproved by the appellant through unregistered agreements to sell /oral evidence. Such a recourse by the appellant is not permitted in law as per provisions contained in chapter VI of the Indian Evidence Act, 1 872, which prohibits admission of oral evidence to contradict the contents of a contract reduced into writing and registered as per law subject to certain exceptions like fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is not the case of the appellant that the contents of the sale deed were ambiguous or of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.07.07 By cash ₹ 2,00,000/- 23.07.07 By cash ₹ 25,000/- 24.07 07 By cash ₹ 1 1.500 - 18 08 07 By cash ₹ 20,000 - 06.09.07 By cash ₹ 25,000 - 07.0907 By cash ₹ 3,000 - 24 10.07 By cash ₹ 8,000/- 23.11.07 By cash ₹ 8,90,000/- 03.12.07 By cash ₹ 11,760/- 24.03.08 By cash ₹ 50,000/- 6. The additional evidence submitted by the appellant counsel in this regard as under: SUBMISSIONS BRIEF FACTS 1 The assessee is a pure agriculturist and his only source of income was from agriculture. The assesee had absolutely no other source of income. 2 Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale Deed executed for ₹ 2326000 vide Sale Deed dated 11.5.2007 which was paid by the buyer to the two brothers by cheque. The cheque of ₹ 1163000 received by the assesse is lying credited in the assesee s bank account. 10 Before the execution of Sale Deed the assesee had received the balance amount of his share in cash out of which he deposited in the bank ₹ 30 lacs on 11.5.2007 and the balance amount was deposited on different dates. 11 Copy of Sale Deed executed by the assesse and his brother in favor of Kamaljit Singh and copies of Agreements executed in favour of Kamaljit Singh @ ₹ 1385000 per acre dated 12.4.2007 are enclosed. Copies of the same were also filed with AO CIT(A). 12 The AO required the assessee to produce the buyer and in response to the same the assesse submitted that buyer is not directly known to him and the department may directly ask the purchaser and make the necessary queries from him. 13 The assessee also filed Affidavit before the AO confirming all the above facts. 14 The Id.AO without making any enquiry from the purchaser made the addition of ₹ 5616960 treating the total cash deposit in the bank as unaccoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the buyer and seller has higher evidentiary value than Sale Agreements. 22 There is no denying the fact that the Sale Deeds executed between the buyer and have full legal entity as they are executed in writing between the seller and buyer in the presence of two witnesses duly signed by all. 23 Moreover, the assessee had conveyed to the AO that he may summon the buyer to confirm the contents of the sale agreements. It was also requested that in case the AO has any doubt to refer the sale agreements, which are signed by the buyer also, to handwriting experts for matching the signatures of buyer on the sale deed as well as on sale agreements. The assesse himself has no authority to force the appearance of buyer before the AO whereas the AO has all the authority to force the presence of buyer to conform the facts of the case and genuineness of the sale agreements. 24 In view of the above facts the major portion of the cash deposited was made exactly on the execution of sale deed which prove the source of cash was on the sale of land only and not from anywhere else. 25 In case the AO was to disbelieve the source of cash he made no effort to make a trail of source of cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source of cash deposit in the ICIC bank account of the assessee as above. We have gone through these documents and other submission made by the assessee, however in our considered opinion, the competent authority in this regard is the ld. CIT(A)who had just rejected the evidentiary value of the unregistered sale agreements without examine the facts and rebuttal of AO in terms of apparent may not be real always. He merely held that such a recourse by the appellant is not permitted in law as per provisions contained in chapter VI of the Indian Evidence Act, 1 872, which prohibits admission of oral evidence to contradict the contents of a contract reduced into writing and registered as per law subject to certain exceptions like fraud, misrepresentation, etc. Such approach of the Ld. CIT(A) can not be justified and approved. He was required to examine the veracity of the unregistered documents by way of verification from the witnesses, Sh. Kavar Jeet Singh, Purchaser of Agricultural land, and prevailing market value of the land in the neighborhood/ vicinity. 9. In our view, the ld. AR, contention that details required by the CIT(A) were submitted but same was not taken on record by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
