9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referring valuation to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). In this case, although assessee has filed order of Chief Revenue Officer /Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, but the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has not taken said order into cognizance, while adjudicating the issue. Even the Tribunal has not considered the plea of assessee in light of the said evidences. In our considered view, order of Chief Revenue Officer /Inspector General of Registration, Chennai is not a relevant criteria to decide whether assessee has paid on-money or not, but it may be one piece of evidence to ascertain correct facts with regard to value of property Since, the assessee has taken a plea in light of said order/report of Chief Revenue Officer /Inspector General of Registration, the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the order before arriving at conclusion that assessee has paid on-money payment for purchase of property, even though the Assessing Officer is not bound to accept the order of Chief Revenue Officer /Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. Appeal needs to be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue - Appeal filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disturbed in transferors assessment (163 Taxman 482 Del HC); the Statutory authority namely 5p1, Deputy Collector (Stamp) fixed its market value at ₹ 44,80,700/- being 6.6% more than Rs, 42 lakhs mentioned in the document; reliance on such stamp authority s value is recognized in 313 ITR 178 Amsr and 57 DTR 449 Ahd. 8. Even the tentative confession ought not to have extracted at all, as it was prohibited by Boards Circular dated 10-03-2013 referred to in 300 IER 157 at 65 (Mds HC) and task Force s recommendation published in 179 CTR St 5 at 235 at Para 3.27. 9. CIT (Appeals) is not justified, relying on decisions in cases ofdissimilar facts, in requiring evidence that an on-money was not paid, while the seller had confirmed in the sale document the actual amount received; requiring to prove a non existing matter is not lawful. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have discussed the decisions ofjurisdictional and Apex Court relied on by Grounds of Appeal, and repeated at Pages 3 and I8 of the appellate order, which are applicable to the facts of this case. 10. Alternately, as assesse is only a co-owner of the property with 50% share along with wife Mrs.P.Sumathi, ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained by assessee and hence, arguments of assessee that no addition could be made on the basis of confession statement alone does not hold good. The learned CIT(A) has also distinguished various case laws relied upon by assessee and further relied upon the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of S.ShyamKumar Vs. ACIT (2018) 99 Taxman.com 39. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal vide its order dated 08.11.2019 in ITA No. 942/Chny/2019 has confirmed the additions made by Assessing Officer towards on-money payment for purchase of property by holding as under:- 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal relates to addition of ₹ 49,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of property. Assessee had admitted undisclosed income in the form of on-money payment for purchase of property but it appears that statement was retracted subsequently. It is a matter ofthat seized documents in the form of diary clearly indicate payment of consideration over and above the apparent consideration mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore deho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, was filed under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Commissioner Stamp), Salem and the value of the site fixed at ₹ 545 per sq.ft has been increased to ₹ 600 per sq.ft and it was also complied with. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said order passed by the statutory authority would definitely have a bearing on the adjudication done by the authorities below and despite the fact that specific ground has been raised before the CIT (Appeals) as well as before the ITAT, the said grounds have not been considered and adjudicated. Therefore, the following substantial question of law raises for consideration: Whether the order of CIT (Appeals) dated 01.03.2019, as confirmed by the impugned order of ITAT dated 08.21.2019, as to the non-consideration of adjudication done under Section 47 (A) (1) of the Indian Stamp Act as well as adjudication done by the Chief Revenue Officer / Inspector General of Registration, Chennai 28 in the appeal filed under Section 47 (A) (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, is sustainable in law? 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Substantial Question of Law framed is answered in affirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef Revenue Officer, which is crucial document to decide the value of property. Therefore, he submitted that additions made by Assessing Officer towards on-money payment for purchase of property u/s.69 of the Act should be deleted. 7. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of learned CIT(A) submitted that it is a matter of fact on record that during the course of search executive diary maintained by assessee was found and seized which indicates on-money payment for purchase of property and same has been confirmed by assessee in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that additions made by Assessing Officer is only on the basis of statement, but not any corroborative evidence found during the course of search. The DR further submitted that when the evidences collected during the course of search clearly indicate on-money payment for purchase of property, which was further confirmed by statement, then there is no reason for the assessee to come with an argument that additions made by Assessing Officer towards on-money payment for purchase of property is on the basis of confession statement. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosed income on account of purchase of property, but such admission was on tentative basis without any corroborating evidence. Further, assessee has filed retraction statement with necessary evidence and retracted from his earlier statement regarding on-money payment for purchase of property. No doubt, addition cannot be made only on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search. This legal position has been clarified by various High Courts including the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullongode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 and also in the case of P.V Kalyanasundaram vs. CIT 294 ITR 049. But, if admission in a statement recorded u/s.132(4) is corroborated with evidences collected during the course of search, then authorities are empowered to make additions on the basis of such statements. However, in this case, before making any addition, the Assessing Officer should have examined the claim of assessee in light of report/order of Chief Revenue Officer /Inspector General of Registration, Chennai or determine value of the property by conducting further enquiry or referring valuation to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). In this case, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
