9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the Revenue is justified in fixing the sale consideration at the higher amount than what has been declared? (B) When the assessee did not give any explanation to the notings found and at the same time the Revenue is able to corroborate the same with the statement of the seller for the purpose of determination of actual sale value, would the lower authority be justified in interfering with the same? (C) When consistent sworn statements were taken into consideration along with evidences found at the time of search, would they all be liable to be rejected on the basis of one statement in between contradicting the earlier ones which was also explained away as a result of intimidation?" The facts leading to the above questions of law are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts given before the income-tax authorities were not true. On August 10, 2000, the seller, Sri Rajarathinam, submitted a letter before the Assessing Officer withdrawing the affidavit given on January 8, 1999. In the subsequent sworn statement recorded before the Assessing Officer on November 20, 2000, Sri Rajarathinam had mentioned that the sale consideration which was received by him from the purchase consideration was actually Rs. 34.85 lakhs, as against Rs. 4.10 lakhs stated in the registered deed for purchase of land. In the cash flow statement for the assessment year 1999-2000, i.e., block period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998, the Assessing Officer adopted the sum in the cash flow relating to purchase of land at Rs. 35.45 lakhs as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the seller, the matter would have been concluded in favour of the Revenue. In a subsequent submission, the seller claimed on November 20, 2000 that he had paid Rs. 15 lakhs out of the sale proceeds to settle old family debts, Rs. 4.80 lakhs for construction of house in Pullkasi Village and the balance was advanced to parties for keeping Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs in the house for family expenses and educational expenses of his daughter, respectively. It was also noted that the revised return was filed by the seller wherein he had shown approximately Rs. 2.5 lakhs being available with him in cash. Even after giving the retraction and admitting that he had sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 4.10 lakhs, the seller filed h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and we uphold the appellate order in this regard." We also found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to the value of the property purchased. He merely relied on the statement given by the seller. If he would have taken independent enquiry by referring the matter with the Valuation Officer, the controversy could have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. In view of the foregoing conclusions, we find no error in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and require no interference. Hence no substantial questions of law arises for consideration of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
