9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of running a Restaurant and Bar and was also trading in plots. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147/148 of the Act. The reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings were the assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajansingh Kuvarsingh Baisthkur, Ausa relating to assessment year 2011-12. The said person had filed the copy of "Kararnama" dated 05.05.2010, as per which he had entered into an agreement to sell his land at Gat No.338, situated at Mauje Karajgaon, Tal Ausa, admeasuring 81R for Rs. 15,25,000/- per acre to Shri Ayub Haji Abdul Rashid Qureshi of Latur (hereinafter referred to as Shri Ayub). The said land was however, subsequently sold to the assessee with the consent of earlier purchasing party with whom "Kararnama" to sell land was made. The assessee had purchased the said land vide purchase deed dated 14.07.2010 from Shri Rajansingh Kurarsingh Baisthkur, (hereinafter referred to as Shri Rajansingh), as per which purchase value was shown at Rs. 2 lakhs only. However, as per "Kararnama", the value of the land worked out to Rs. 30,88,125/- for 81R of land. The Assessing Officer was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He confirmed that the sale deed was executed in the name of assessee to which consent was given by Shri Ayub and the balance sum of Rs. 23,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 2 lakhs by cheque was given at the time of sale deed. The assessee was given an opportunity to explain its case, who stressed that he had purchased the said agricultural land by paying sale consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs through cheque. He accepted that he had got the copies of "Kararnama" and also copies of bank account in which the cash was deposited by Shri Rajansingh. He opposed the findings of Assessing Officer in this regard and stressed that he had purchased the land for consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. In support of which, his statement was recorded. He stressed that in the said statement, no questions were raised about cash consideration paid to Shri Rajansingh. He also placed on record another land purchased by him on the same date for consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. He pointed out that the title of land was defective. However, he opposed the proposition of Assessing Officer that the said cash deposit in the account of Shri Rajansingh had in correlation to the assessee. He stressed that the land was totally barren and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consent of Shri Ayub was obtained on the sale deed, otherwise, there was no need for such consent. Further, questions were asked in this regard and the CIT(A) has referred to them in paras 13 to 15. The CIT(A) vide para 18 notes that Shri Rajansingh had clarified in the cross-examination that "Kararnama" was the main evidence and he had received the cheque and cash from the assessee. He had also given reasons for accepting cash and the depositing the same in the bank account. The assessee also cross-examined Shri Ayub, who had entered into "Kararnama" with Shri Rajansingh, who in turn, admitted to have made the said "Kararnama" with Shri Rajasingh. However, since there was litigation in the said barren land, he claimed to have cancelled "Kararnama" on the same day and statement in this regard was given in the course of assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. He further stated that he had not given any advance to Shri Rajansingh since on the measurement of land, he came to know that the land was in litigation, hence "Kararnama" was cancelled. The CIT(A) vide para 21 observes that along with "Kararnama" the fact of payment of Rs. 5 lakhs is mentioned as also the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the favour of the seller and therefore I hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not suffer from any infirmity and the addition of Rs. 28,88,125/- made by the Assessing Officer is correct and his order is confirmed." 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee after taking us through the facts of the case referred to the additional evidence and the report of DVO that the valuation of said land was low, so the capital gains were accordingly worked out. He further stressed that the entire burden was not on assessee against the cash payments. He referred to the report of DVO and pointed out that the value of the property is low and also other evidence i.e. sale transaction in the area, where the properties have been sold at the rates at which the assessee had purchased. He stressed that all these evidences have not been looked into and the same may be sent back to the file of Assessing Officer. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, strongly objected to the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee and pointed out that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not party to the transaction, then why he was the consenting party. He gave some story about the property dealer asking him to be the consenting party. However, in view of the circumstantial evidence collected by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and both the examination by the Assessing Officer and the cross-examination of Shri Rajansingh undertaken by the assessee, wherein he admitted to the cash receipts on the sale of his agricultural land, no further queries were raised by the assessee, then the said "Kararnama" and the circumstantial evidence of cash deposits in the bank account establishes the case of Revenue. The affidavit of assessee as to not having paid any other amount other than Rs. 2 lakhs mentioned in the sale deed is a self serving document and cannot be relied on especially in view of statement of purchasers having accepted cash against the sale of his land. 11. Another point which needs to be kept in mind is two months from the date of sale. The said land was admittedly sold for Rs. 30 lakhs and now after period of two months, the same cannot be sold only for Rs. 2 lakhs in the agreement. There is no merit in the plea of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
