9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed the assessment while adding ₹ 38.65 lacs for the AY 2001-02 and ₹ 46,32,500 for the AY 2002-03 - Payment of the sale consideration from NRI account - Additions deleted by CIT(A) confirmed by the ITAT HELD THAT:- It is undisputed/position that before the AO said Satinder Pal Singh did not appear and made any statement nor an opportunity was granted to the assessee to confront the sale deed and cross examine Satinder Pal Singh on the statement which he had made before the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investment). In spite of all this evidence, the AO made the addition under Section 69B of the Act only on the basis of conjectures while observing that it is a well known practice that the sale deeds of immovable pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee by stating that the seller has retracted his statement based on which the assessing officer had made the addition in view of the fact that the assessee cannot be allowed to retract from an earlier admission by mere statement ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee by stating that the assessee was not provided opportunity to cross examine the seller in view of the fact that the right to cross examine is not necessarily a part of reasonable opportunity ? 2. In the present case, the assessee purchased 17.5 and 21 acres of agricultural land on 14-12-2000 and 9-4-2001, on behalf of Avtar Singh and Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala which were allowed by the appellate authority on 3-2-2005 while making the following observations: ...The learned assessing officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investment), Ludhiana on 18-9-2001 in which the seller has deposed that apart from the registration deed he had received ₹ 72,00,000 from the appellant in five instalments. This statement has been perused by me and it is found that the contents of this statement regarding declaration of extra money received from the purchasers had not been substantiated by him either in the same statement or through his subsequent conduct. Neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer, Ward-Ill, Khanna, the learned assessing officer while completing his assessment after detailed scrutiny has categorically accepted that he had sold the land to the appellant in the capacity of agent of NRIs for a sum of ₹ 38,35,000 only in this year. 6.1 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned assessing officer was not justified in adding the sum of ₹ 38,65,000 in the hands of the appellant treating the same as investment from undisclosed sources. Hence the same is deleted. 5. The Department being not satisfied with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), filed two separate appeals before the Tribunal. The said appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on 9-3-2007 by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wing of the Department. In spite of the same, the assessing authority has independently verified the position and has not inferred that no consideration over and above the stated consideration has changed hands. Thirdly, we also notice that the present assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings, specifically contested the alleged admission by Shri Satinder Pal Singh and requested that the assessee be allowed to cross examine the said person. There is nothing on record to indicate the reasons as to why the assessing authority failed to allow cross examination, specially when the only evidence with the assessing authority was the alleged statement of the seller. Therefore, the said statement has been put to use by the revenue without i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered deed is correct unless the contrary is proved by credible evidence, clearly applies in the instant case. 6. Against the said order, the aforesaid two appeals have been filed. 7. After hearing the counsel for the Appellant and going through the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has recorded a pure finding of fact after taking into consideration the evidence/material available on the record to the effect that before the assessing officer there was no material or evidence to conclude that the assessee had paid a consideration over and above the amount mentioned in the registered sale deed, i.e. at the rate of ₹ 2.30 lacs per acre and the addition made by him was without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
