9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- The ld. CIT (A) is not correct in directing to delete the addition of ₹ 8,20,150/- without taking into consideration the confirmation given by the witness who was in no way concern to the property as buyer or a seller and also to the fact that the seller admitted that he had received said consideration of ₹ 26,00,000/- but not ₹ 9,60,000/-. 3. Briefly the facts are as a result of a survey u/s 133A conducted in the business premises of Royal Jewellers, Poddatur of Mr. K. Hussain Basha, materials were found indicating purchase of land by the assessee and her sister, the other respondent, for a consideration of ₹ 9,60,000/- including registration expenses. In response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Ashok has stated in course of survey operation to have received ₹ 26,00,000 only for the purpose of explaining away the unexplained investment made in his house construction. The assessee further contended that neither Dr. K. Ashok nor V. Lalu Saheb could produce any proof or documentary evidence to substantiate the fact that the assessee has paid the sale consideration of ₹ 26,00,000. In absence of any supporting evidence the statement given by Dr. K. Ashok is only self serving to adjust his unexplained money which will get regularised as tax free capital gain. The assessee contended that both Dr. K. Ashok and V. Lalu Saheb being signatories to the sale deed registered before the registering authority of the Government, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale deed have categorically stated that the assessee had purchased the property for a consideration of ₹ 26,00,000/- the AO cannot ignore it and accept the value mentioned in the sale deed. In support of his contention the ld. DR relied upon a decision in the case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Kumar reported in 154 Taxman 170. 7. Learned AR submitted that in the original return filed by the vendor, he has shown the sale consideration received at ₹ 9,60,000 as per the registered sale deed. Only after survey was conducted on him u/s 133A the vendor came up with the story that he has received ₹ 26,00,000/- from the assessee for explaining the unexplained investment made in house construction and filed a revised return. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and thereafter filed a revised return claiming to have received actual consideration of ₹ 26 lakhs. It was stated by Dr. K. Ashok that over and above the amount of ₹ 9,60,000 mentioned in the registered sale deed he received an amount of ₹ 16,40,000 in cash towards the sale consideration. However, apart from this statement no other evidence was produced by him to substantiate the claim that he actually received more than what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The ITAT while setting aside the assessment made earlier had in its order in ITA No.1275- 76/Hyd/2008 dated 14-10-2008 directed the AO to allow the assessee to cross examine Dr. Ashok and Lalu Saheb no real opportunity of cross examination seems to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
