9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard. Reliance placed upon the other sale transactions in the area is not correct, especially where the case under consideration is of cash payment over and above the price declared in the sale deed. The CIT(A) has elaborately referred to each of the issues raised by the assessee and has also made reference to the statements in the cross-examination of various persons and the affidavit of assessee. Upholding the order of CIT(A) the claim of assessee is dismissed. One aspect which needs to be emphasized is the receipt of ₹ 5 lakhs along with “Kararnama” which is a document found and considered by the authorities below as against the statement of Shri Ayub that he did not pay anything. In case, he was not party to the transaction, then there was no necessity for him to bgrounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed.ecome consenting party to the sale deed between Shri Rajansingh and the assessee. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, addition of ₹ 28,88,125/- is upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 729/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2017 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM For The Appellant : Shri Sharad Shah For The Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Rajansingh, wherein he had deposited cash of ₹ 15 lakhs on 15.07.2010 in Janta Sahakari Bank and ₹ 7 lakhs ₹ 4,90,000/- in State Bank of India on 15.07.2010 and 10.05.2010. The total cash deposits were at ₹ 26,90,000/-. The Kararnama was dated 05.05.2010 and the sale deed was dated 14.07.2010 and the cash deposits were on 15.07.2010 and 10.05.2010. The Assessing Officer in view of the said events of cash deposits in the bank account of Shri Rajansingh, held the same to be circumstantial and corroborative evidence to infer that the land was purchased by the assessee for ₹ 30,88,125/- and not for ₹ 2 lakhs. The reasons were recorded for reopening the assessment on this ground. The Assessing Officer also noted another transaction of purchase of property by the assessee, which was not reflected in the Balance Sheet during reopening proceedings. Thereafter, various opportunities were given to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to properly comply with the same. The Assessing Officer considered the fact that where the earlier purchaser Shri Ayub of Latur was ready to purchase the land @ ₹ 15.50 lakhs per acre, then why within perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer rejected the explanation filed by the assessee, in view of various evidences collected and held that the land in question was purchased for ₹ 30,88,125/- as against the claim of assessee that he had purchased at ₹ 2 lakhs. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised the additional grounds of appeal that he was not given a chance to cross-examine Shri Ayub and Shri Rajansingh. Accordingly, the CIT(A) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow an opportunity to cross-examine the said persons and send the report. The assessee also stressed that he had neither paid any amount to the consenting party nor any cash to Shri Rajansingh and filed an affidavit in this regard. The said affidavit was also forwarded to the Assessing Officer, who in turn, has sent his remand report, to which, the assessee filed rejoinder. The assessee had cross-examined Shri Rajansingh on 30.11.2015 and the CIT(A) has referred the same in para 9, wherein he admitted in the cross-examination that he had received ₹ 5 lakhs as advance on 05.05.2010 and the balance sum of ₹ 23,50,000/- was received in cash and ₹ 2 lakhs by cheque. The CIT(A) further noted on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Shri Ayub and he further admitted that the consent of consenting party was obtained at the behest of broker. The assessee in the rejoinder objected that the original Kararnama was not produced. The CIT(A) noted that he was in the knowledge that the same was lying with Shri Ayub, the assessee chose to ignore this issue while examining Shri Ayub and he did not even ask them to produce. Since the assessee had failed to avail the opportunity provided to him, the CIT(A) held that no fault could be found with the Assessing Officer and seller in this regard. 6. The second aspect was that the registered price of the said land was ₹ 2 lakhs but the CIT(A) referred to various documents and the deposit of cash in the bank account of Shri Rajansingh and referred to the questions asked during the cross-examination and held that it was not open to assessee to state that the said Kararnama could not be relied upon. Further, the assessee submitted an evidence of another sale deed in the adjacent area where the rate of land was worked out to ₹ 2 lakhs. The CIT(A) did not accept the reliance on the said piece of evidence which was produced for the first time before him and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirming party were recorded and during the course of remand proceedings, he was allowed opportunity to cross-examine the seller, who has vehemently accepted the cash receipt over and above the slated sale consideration in the sale deed and the amount has also been deposited in cash in his bank account, which is other evidence against the assessee. 10. On perusal of record and the orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and after going through the Paper Book filed by the assessee, the issue which arises in the present appeal is in relation to the addition of ₹ 28,88,125/-. The basis for the addition is sale transaction between Shri Rajansingh seller and the assessee purchaser with confirming party Shri Ayub. The piece of land which was sold was admeasuring 81R which was owned by Shri Rajansingh. He entered into an agreement to sell the same with Shri Ayub for consideration of ₹ 15,25,000/- per acre and the value of land proposed to be sold worked out to ₹ 30,88,125/-. The land was subsequently sold with the consent of Shri Ayub to the assessee vide sale deed dated 14.07.2007 for total consideration of ₹ 2 lakhs only. On the enquiries made by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sale transactions in the area is not correct, especially where the case under consideration is of cash payment over and above the price declared in the sale deed. The CIT(A) has elaborately referred to each of the issues raised by the assessee and has also made reference to the statements in the cross-examination of various persons and the affidavit of assessee. We have already referred to the various paras of CIT(A) in this regard. Upholding the order of CIT(A) and also referring to the observations of CIT(A) from paras 8 onwards, which is not reproduced for the sake of brevity, the claim of assessee is dismissed. One aspect which needs to be emphasized is the receipt of ₹ 5 lakhs along with Kararnama which is a document found and considered by the authorities below as against the statement of Shri Ayub that he did not pay anything. In case, he was not party to the transaction, then there was no necessity for him to bgrounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed.ecome consenting party to the sale deed between Shri Rajansingh and the assessee. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, addition of ₹ 28,88,125/- is upheld. The 12. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
