9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, Automobiles, Hospitality and FMCG goods. The assessee submitted before A.O. that return filed originally may be treated as return having filed in response to notice under section 153A of the I.T. Act. The assessee derived income from salary, house property, business and profession and income from other sources and capital gains. The assessee filed the details before A.O. 3. During the course of search and seizure operation, a copy of the agreement in respect of sale of property No.B.90, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was seized as per pages 1 to 47 of Annexure-A1. According to the said agreement, the sale consideration is for Rs. 81 lakhs. The assessee is the seller and Shri Pawan Khurana is the purchaser of this property. A receipt of Rs. 1 lakh as advance against this property was also seized as per page-47 of Annexure-A1 (PB-17). As per this receipt, Shri L.C.Madan has received a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from Shri Pawan Khurana-Purchaser of the property. The said receipt has been duly signed by Shri L.C. Madan and witnessed by the purchaser. As per this receipt, the sale proceeds of this property was settled between Shri L.C.Madan, father of the assessee and Shri Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question. Photo copy of the receipt has no evidentiary value. The Ld. CIT(A), however, confirmed the addition. His findings are reproduced as under: As regards ground No.2 touching on the sale consideration of the impugned property at New Delhi after hearing and considering the various aspects of the matter pleaded before me by the appellant I am of the firm view that there was ample justification with the AO to reject the consideration of Rs. 8! lacs as apparent from the "agreement to sell" and accept the consideration of Rs. 2.25 crores as manifest from the "money receipt" seized during the course of search from the appellant's custody. The various reasons which persuade me to uphold the view of the AO are enumerated below:- 1. The very fact that Sh L.C. Madan. father of the appellant, who issued the receipt on behalf of the appellant with whom he was residing and also acting as the Manager of the appellant's business affairs did not ever reside from the fact of having issued the receipt, elevated the receipt to the status of an admission regarding the sale of Flat No.B-90, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for Rs. 2.25 crores. His reticence was a tacit approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same property, whose sale was effected soon thereafter, took the said evidence i.e. money receipt, out of the domain of suspicious documents and placed his disclosure in the category of admission of a precise fact sufficient to pin the appellant down to the very admission. 10. The appellant failed to adduce evidence contradicting the positive conclusion of the AO that the receipt evidencing sale of flat for Rs. 2.25 crores was bogus or irrelevant. 11. The admission regarding the sale consideration was made by the appellant in a statement recorded on oath u/s 131(1 A) of the Act also though only partly. 12. As per section 17 rws 58 of the Indian Evidence Act the appellant was bound by the receipt as for want of denial from his father it was as good as an admission of such a nature which could not lead to some other inference or which could characterize it as an admission in respect of a different fact. 13. By conceding that the value of sale reflected in the piece of paper was partly true and correct, the appellant waived/dispensed with his right to produce the evidence to the contrary in future. 14. No satisfactory explanation could be produced by the appellant du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed of the same property was also executed on 23.06.2010 for a sum of Rs. 81 lakhs. The Department is however, relying upon the receipt dated 18.04.2010 executed by Shri L.C. Madan in favour of the purchaser. The copy of the receipt is filed at page-17 of the PB. It is stated to be singed by Shri L.C. Madan and witness by Shri Vikram Sharma, Broker. The receipt in question is not signed by the assessee (seller) as well as by the purchaser Shri Pawan Khurana. However, according to the department, this receipt was found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee. When statement of the assessee was recorded after search and the receipt in question was shown to him with reference to the sale consideration of the property of Rs. 2.25 crores, assessee denied having any idea regarding this paper. The assessee in answer to another question confirmed that the property was sold for Rs. 81 lakhs only for which agreement to sell and sale deed was executed. Therefore, there is a difference of sale consideration as per seized agreement to sell and seized copy of the receipt. The agreement to sell is supported by the registered sale deed. It may be noted here that the agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration and the assessee at the initial stage itself on the date of the search denied execution of any receipt in the matter. This statement is supported by the fact that the assessee being seller did not sign the receipt in question which was also not signed by the purchaser Shri Pawan Khurana. The A.O, therefore, wrongly recorded in the assessment order that the said receipt has been witnessed by Shri Pawan Khurana, purchaser of the property. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Revenue should not merely rely upon presumption against the assessee and the A.O. was required to make thorough investigation into the matter. It may also be noted that statement of Shri L.C. Madan was recorded by the search party on 09.11.2010, copy of which is supplied by the Ld. D.R. which was with regard to search of Locker No.304 of Corporation Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. No other statement of Shri L.C. Madan have been brought on record with regard to genuineness of the receipt in question. When the receipt is alleged to have signed by Shri L.C. Madan and witness by Shri Vikram Sharma, it was necessary for the A.O. to record their statements under section 131 of the I.T. Act along with statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
