9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res and add to the sellers Mr Chotu Sab and his family members and assessed them on the said amount for payment of capital gains, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the burden of proof of payment by the respondent - assessee should not be shifted on the Revenue, is not worthy of acceptance. The respondent has claimed that he made the payment of the said amount to Mr Chotu Sab and his family members which has also been accepted by the Revenue in the returns filed by Mr Chotu Sab and his family members. Once the same has been done, the Department cannot turn around and claim that the respondent assessee should prove to have made such payment of ₹ 2.83 crores and add for purchase of the said land. No substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n though the finding are based on mere conjuncture and surmises when proof of ₹ 1,27,00,000/- only was shown and the balance ₹ 1,56,01,868/- had not been proved by the assessee by adducing any cogent evidence and consequently recorded a perverse finding. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the burden of demonstrating that a sum of ₹ 1,56,01,868/- and not been paid had to be established by the revenue by adducing cogent evidence. We have heard Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri A Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, only an amount of ₹ 1.27 crores was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt on 9.7.2013. The said position that protective assessment against Mr Chotu Sab and his family members for an amount of ₹ 2.83 crores and odd was made is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the fact that the Department itself has accepted the payment of ₹ 2.83 crores and odd to the sellers Mr Chotu Sab and his family members and assessed them on the said amount for payment of capital gains, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the burden of proof of payment by the respondent - assessee should not be shifted on the Revenue, is not worthy of acceptance. The respondent has claimed that he made the payment of the said amount to Mr Chotu Sab and his family members which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
