9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments admitted to be correct by the assessee's directors in their statement under section 132(4), merely on the basis of statement of the broker and no other corroborating evidences? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in ignoring documentary evidences (i.e. satakhat) in which, the assessee himself admits of the fair market value of the land, as sufficient proof of prevailing market rate of the land of the area?" 2. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt for the revenue. She has strenuously argued before us that serious error has been committed by the Tribunal in not accepting the price of land at Rs.2.80 lakhs per bigha. Despite there being two agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer recorded the statements wherein the Director of the said Group had admitted to the cash payment to the transferor and accordingly summons was issued to Shri Natvarsingh Nathusingh Admar. On the basis of the statement of Shri Natvarsingh and on the basis of these documents, the Assessing Officer considered the sum of Rs.42,40,636/- as unexplained income and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee. 7. When such addition was challenged before CIT(Appeals), it also concurred with the findings of Assessing Officer by holding that the entire evidence was to show that Satakhat or the agreement to sell proved the market rate of the land at Rs.2.80 per bighas, and therefore the Assessing Officer was justified in making the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiry to find out the market value of the land or had referred the matter to the DVO to determine the market value of the land. On examining the entire facts of the case, it is quite apparent that the revenue had made the additions only on the strength of the two agreements obtained at the time of search. It is pertinent to note the decision of the case CIT v. Naresh Khattar HUF reported in 261 ITR 664 (Del.) wherein it was held that inference has to be drawn on the totality of the circumstance and not on any single fact while making addition u/s. 69B of the Act. From the facts and circumstances of this case and as per our above discussions, we are of the view that the aggregate addition made for Rs.2,09,72,810/- in the hands of all the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to purchase the land he agreed to sell from other agriculturists. Being sure of striking such deals at the rate he had contemplated, he had entered into an agreement to sell for selling the land at Rs.2.80 lakhs per bigha to the company expecting huge profit in the process. However, when some of the owners denied to sell him the land at the price that he expected, the amount of Rs.90,000/- that was received by him from the company by way of token towards sale consideration was asked to be returned. He had been emphatic that such deal did not get through and therefore the amount had been returned to the company. It could be thus noticed from the statement recorded of the Director and others that the middleman had ensured the company to g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
