9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant-assessee vide an order dated 25-4-2008. 2. Through the instant appeal, the appellant-assessee has impugned the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as also, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, referred to hereinabove. 3. The issue under consideration relates to the addition of ₹ 7,00,000 to the income of the appellant-assessee. The claim of the appellant-assessee was that, he entered into an agreement dated 4-11-2003 (Annexure A-4) for the sale of his agricultural land, wherein the total consideration payable to the appellant-assessee was ₹ 31,60,000 in lieu of the sale of land measuring 23 kanals 13 marlas to one Basau Ram. During the course of the execution of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of selling this land. As a matter of fact, he purchased more lands in the subsequent year ending 31-3-2005 where the addition to the agricultural land is ₹ 10,21,720. It is also relevant to mention that even in subsequent year, he has again shown the forfeiture of earnest money of ₹ 2,50,000 against the sale of lands. (b)As per agreement dated 4-11-2003, the area of land which was shown to be sold was 23 kanals 13 marlas at the rate of ₹ 10,70,000 per acre. The total sale consideration was about ₹ 3.16 lakh out of which ₹ 7,00,000 was shown as earnest money received by Dr. P.C. Sharma. The date by which the registration deed was to be executed was shown as 5-12-2003 i.e., only one month s time. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which this loan was taken by him. The copy of this certificate as sent by the Bank is lying at file page - 58 Vol. III. This document clearly proves that the loan of ₹ 4,00,000 was not meant for purchase of land belonging to Dr. P.C. Sharma. (d)Shri Basau Ram had stated on 13-7-2006 that the other draft of ₹ 3,00,000 which was payable to Dr. P.C. Sharma was purchased out of cash amount lying at his residence in the village. It has been found that Shri Basau Ram had opened a saving Bank A/c. No. 9159 with SBOP, Kaithal on 29-10-2003 by depositing ₹ 1,000 in cash. If any cash like ₹ 3,00,000 was lying with him, it can be expected that he would have preferred to keep the same in his Bank account. At the same time, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i)A depreciation chart was enclosed with the return which is lying at file page - 11. The perusal of this chart shows that assessee had deducted a sum of ₹ 7,00,000 from the value of agricultural lands showing the same as sale. It was actually not a sale. In the note below the depreciation chart, assessee had mentioned - a sum of ₹ 7,00,000 has been deducted from agricultural land, which is on account of forfeiture of earnest money against sale. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was requested to produce the evidence for ownership and sale of land for the earnest money, which was received against the agricultural land. This is per order sheet entry dated 12-6-2006. (ii)A written reply was filed on 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing at his residence in the village. (iv)Assessee Dr. P.C. Sharma was confronted with the fact that the SBOP, Kaithal had given the loans of ₹ 1,00,000 (cash credit limit) and ₹ 3,00,000 (Kisan Gold Card) against mortgage of lands for agricultural purposes i.e., for purchase and development of agricultural inputs, machinery etc., this means that these loans were not for purchase of any lands. Collectively, on the basis of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as well as, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal arrived at the conclusion, that the agreement dated 4-11-2003 (Annexure A-4) set-up by the appellant - assessee was a bogus document. 4. Having heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
