9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 130 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed income - Unaccounted sums of money - Unexplained investment in the purchase of property Purchase consideration as per sale deed was Rs. 3.70 lakhs whereas sale consideration as per seller was Rs. 38 lakhs Seller filled revised return on 31.3.2001 in which sale consideration was declared at Rs. 38.00 lakhs Held that - Following the decision in case of Shashi Kiran (2010 (8) TMI 767 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) and concluding from the facts that the seller has given a categorical statement during cross examination that they had received a sum of Rs. 38.00 lakhs as total consideration including Rs. 35.30 lakhs as cash in addition to Rs. 3.70 lakhs stated in the sale deed. Further this amount has been duly declared by the seller in their revised return and the assessee has not been able to controvert this evidence. In favour of revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- as undisclosed income by way of unexplained investment in the purchase of property. 2. Consideration of market value versus registered value of the property. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- as Undisclosed Income: The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) and later reassessed under sections 143(3)/147, resulting in a net taxable income of Rs. 35,56,110/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,26,108/-. The primary addition was due to the sale of a property where the sale consideration was declared as Rs. 38.00 lakhs by the seller, while the assessee declared only Rs. 3,70,000/-. The Tribunal initially set aside the assessment and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. Upon remand, the AO issued summons and recorded statements from the seller, Shri Dig Vijay, and Smt. Prem Lata. Both reiterated that the property was sold for Rs. 38.00 lakhs, with only Rs. 3,70,000/- documented in the sale deed. The AO concluded that the assessee was in possession of unaccounted sums of money and upheld the addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- based on these statements and the sellers' revised returns showing higher sale consideration. The assessee argued that the sellers revised their returns under pressure due to incriminating documents found during a survey. However, the AO dismissed these objections, noting that the sellers had not admitted to any coercion and had provided consistent statements regarding the sale consideration and its utilization. The AO also rejected the assessee's comparable sale instances, stating that the property in question was at a prime location opposite the Railway Station, justifying the higher value. 2. Consideration of Market Value versus Registered Value: The assessee contended that the market value should not exceed the registered value of Rs. 3,70,000/-. However, the AO and the Tribunal emphasized that the apparent consideration in the sale deed must be accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal referenced several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in K.P. Varghese v. ITO, which held that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to show that the actual consideration was higher than declared. The Tribunal found the sellers' consistent statements and their revised returns declaring the higher consideration as credible evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's group had surrendered a significant amount during a search, indicating a propensity for unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the higher sale consideration was justified and upheld the addition of Rs. 34,30,000/-. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- as undisclosed income. It held that the evidence provided by the sellers and the circumstances surrounding the transaction supported the conclusion that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 38.00 lakhs, not Rs. 3,70,000/-. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof lying with the Revenue to substantiate claims of higher consideration.
|
