9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idences 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?" - AO 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 requires no interference - - - - - Dated:- 8-2-2006 - Judge(s) : P. D. DINAKARAN., P. P. S. JANARTH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. During the course of the search in the office premises of Polimer Net Work, certain notings were found in the seized material RK/S/B D/25. In the statement recorded on December 8, 1998, the assessee stated that he did not remember for what purpose he had made notings, which was confirmed by the assessee in a subsequent statement recorded on December 11, 1998. The land was purchased from one Shri Rajarathinam. His statement was also recorded on the date of search, i.e., December 8, 1998 and also on December 11, 1998. In the sworn statement dated December 8, 1998, in question No. 3, Shri Rajarathinam admitted that he had received Rs. 4.10 lakhs as sale consideration but in question No.4, he admitted that he had received Rs. 34.35 lakhs. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), noted that due to the conflicting nature of the statements given by the seller, his statement could not be relied upon and hence he deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the value declared by the assessee for the purchase of the plot was Rs. 100 per sq.ft. even when the guideline value was Rs. 400 per sq.ft. and hence the order of the Tribunal was perverse, wrong an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r construction of residential house property and consequently claiming exemption under section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs. 1,83,576 as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting income-tax returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save from further harassment from the Revenue and escape from the exigibility of tax on undisclosed income of the cash consideration under section 158BD of the Act, which in magnitude would far exceed the tax paid by him. The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction was that of the Revenue. The Tribunal had given tactual finding and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
