9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure was too old. Though no breakup of valuation of the property was given in the agreement to sale, in the affidavit dated 26.05.2006, such breakup was given. Pre and post agreement to sale in which the valuation of building and furniture was drastically reduced, the Assessing Officer and higher authorities correctly noted that the valuation of ₹ 80 lakhs for the land defies logic where merely 6 years earlier the Government Approved Valuer valued the land at ₹ 1.17 crores. It is not as if the fact that such omitted land was new tenure land, was not noticed by the purchasers. In the banakhat itself, there is a reference to this parcel of land. The assessee's oral assertion that the valuation report of the year 2000 was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of search despite the fact that no iota of evidence as to payment of any unaccounted purchase consideration was found during the extensive search operation ? ( ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in heavily relying on the banakhat despite the fact that the deal as per such banakhat was called off and thereafter, fresh arrangement was made as per which, the purchase consideration was reduced from ₹ 4.25 crore to ₹ 2.05 crore and the conveyance deeds as well as affidavit of seller substantiating the purchase consideration of ₹ 2.05 crore were also found during the course of search itself ? ( iii) Whether in the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment of the lending bank. The owners have directly paid inclusive of the payments made by the purchasers a total sum of ₹ 2.05 crores to the bank for lifting the attachment. 3. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the reduction in the reflected sale price as compared to the banakhat price was not properly explained. He confronted the assessee with such drastic reduction in such a short span of time. The assessee mainly raised following contentions: I. The land bearing block No.210/B was eventually not purchased though shown in the banakhat since it was a new tenure land. II. The sale of furniture and fixtures fetched ₹ 90 lakhs to the land owners. III. After agreeing to purchase the entire property for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total sale consideration of ₹ 4.25 crores for the entire property. The last date for completing the sale by making full payment was 31.05.2006. On 26.05.2006 itself, the final sale deed was executed. In such sale deed, there was drastic reduction in the reflected sale consideration from a total of ₹ 4.25 crores shown in the agreement to sale, the sale deed only evidenced payment of ₹ 1,14,15,000/. Only component principally missing was the furniture and fixtures which the owners were themselves allowed to sale which fetched a sum of ₹ 90 lakhs. There still remained a shortfall of ₹ 2.20 crores which had to be explained by the assessee. His only explanation was, after executing the agreement to sale, the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
