9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the appellant as income from other sources and not as capital gains? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse in holding that the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness of the banakhat dated 16.12.1986?" 2. The short issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 1.32 crores (rounded off) made by the Assessing Officer in case of the assessee for the assessment year 200910. In the return filed by the assessee for the said year, he had shown a receipt of Rs. 1.32 crores arising out of sale of longterm capital asset. The assessee had claimed adjustment of the indexed cost of acquisition and investments made from the said proceeds in specified bonds. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case is that the above stated banakhat followed by the MOU in question dated 14.09.2009 had been rightly rejected in course of assessment proceedings to be lacking any cogent evidence. Shri Soparkar (learned senior counsel) draws strong support from the CIT(A)'s twin reasoning extracted hereinabove. He seeks to place vehement emphasize to assessee's plea that the assessing authority never summoned the above stated vendors so as to express any doubt over genuineness of his claim of having entered into the banakhat in question. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. The sole dispute between the parties is qua onus of proving genuineness of the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986 stated to be execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986 nor the sale deed dated 10.09.2008. There is further no evidence in the case file in the nature of form 7/12 that the assessee ever remained in cultivating possession of the lands sold. We observe in these peculiar facts that the assessee has failed to prove veracity genuineness of the banakhat in question dated 16.12.1986. We thus find force in Assessing Officer's observations on the latter aspect of the issue that the assessee had failed in proving any advance payment of Rs. 5 lacs in question by way of any supportive material; whatsoever." 5. From the materials on record, it can be seen that the entire issue revolves around the genuineness of the banakhat and the alleged payment of Rs. 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord suggesting possession or cultivation of the assessee. V. The payment of Rs. 1.32 crores is stated to have been spread over a period of time, long after the sale deed was executed and is supposed to be backed by a document titled as mutual money transaction agreement. It is quite inconcieviable that a person who claims the right to purchase a land under an agreement would sign the sale deed in favour of a third party acting as a confirming party without his consideration for such purpose being either actually paid or even promised to be paid. 6. Multiple factors noted above when seen cumulatively leaves little doubt that the Tribunal arrived at a factual finding which calls for no interference. No question of law therefore arises. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
