2013 (11) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Long term capital gain Sale of plot of land - The Income Tax Department while conducting search at the premises or Piyush Group received a document from anonymous sources through fax purporting to be an Agreement to Sale of the said Property - the assessee and the buyers vehemently denied having ever entered into any such Agreement to sale of the said property at this consideration. They however stated that there was an earlier agreement to sell the property at a sum of Rs. eight crores which due to some problems in title in the land got reduced to Rs.5.5 crores and the final sale deed was executed at this sum of Rs.5.5 crores. Held that - In the case of purchaser on the very same transaction, the Tribunal considered each set of evidences relied upon by the Ld.A.O. and deleted the addition of Rs.12.5 crores made in the hands of the purchaser. Before us is the case of the sellers of this property. - A different view cannot be taken on the same set of facts and evidences. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the assessment order under Section 153A.
2. Addition of Rs. 16,66,666/- under the head "long term capital gains" based on alleged undisclosed sale consideration of property.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 153A:

The assessee challenged the assessment order under Section 153A on several grounds, including:
- The assessment order was beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab-initio.
- The search carried out under Section 132 was invalid and without proper authorization.
- The assessment was made on the basis of a search warrant and panchnama issued in the joint names of Smt. Parminder Chadha and Shri Tej Pal Singh, while the assessment was done in the individual capacity of the appellant.
- The assessment was completed without following the principles of natural justice.

The appellant's representative, Mr. Ajay Vohra, did not press these grounds during the hearing, and thus, they were not considered in detail by the Tribunal.

2. Addition of Rs. 16,66,666/- under the Head "Long Term Capital Gains":

The main contention was the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) based on an alleged agreement to sell the property for Rs. 18 crores, received via fax from anonymous sources. The assessee declared the sale consideration as Rs. 5.5 crores, which was reflected in the registered sale deed.

2.1 Reliability of the Alleged Agreement to Sell:
- The Tribunal found that the alleged agreement to sell and receipt, both dated 15.02.2007, were received from anonymous sources via fax and not seized during the search operations. The assessee and the buyers denied the existence of such an agreement for Rs. 18 crores.
- The Tribunal held that documents received from anonymous sources without original copies and identity of the sender lack evidentiary value. This was supported by the Supreme Court's stance that such documents are not reliable unless confirmed by subsequent signed applications or affidavits.

2.2 Draft Receipts:
- The A.O. relied on two draft receipts found during the search, showing amounts of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 2.70 crores. The Tribunal noted that these receipts were not signed by all co-owners and were found with Smt. Parminder Chadha, not the purchasers.
- Smt. Parminder Chadha explained that these were draft receipts prepared in anticipation of an agreement that was later canceled. The Tribunal found this explanation plausible and noted that the receipts should have been found with the purchasers if they were genuine.

2.3 Payment of Rs. 2 Crores by Cheque:
- The Tribunal considered the ledger account showing Rs. 2 crores paid by cheque to Smt. Parminder Chadha for a separate property transaction, which was not materialized. The Tribunal found that this payment could not be conclusively linked to the sale consideration of the disputed property.

2.4 Statements of Harish Singla:
- The Tribunal emphasized the reliability of statements made under Section 132(4) during the search, where Harish Singla confirmed the sale consideration as Rs. 5.5 crores. His later contradictory statements were not given weight as they were made without allowing cross-examination and amidst personal disputes.

2.5 Other Alleged Evidences:
- The Tribunal reviewed other documents like agreements for office space booking and found no conclusive evidence that these were linked to the sale consideration of the property in question.
- The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. failed to establish beyond doubt that the property was sold for Rs. 18 crores instead of Rs. 5.5 crores.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering all evidences and following the precedent set in the case of M/s Piyush Infrastructure India P. Ltd., deleted the additions made by the A.O. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the assessment orders were set aside.

Order Pronounced:
The appeals were allowed, and the order was pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd November, 2013.