9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Banakhat was not actual document which was signed by the assessee as per the contentions of the Ld. A.R. The statement made during the proceedings u/s 131(1A) was also retracted by the assessee as the assessee was not in a proper mind to give his statement as per contentions of the Ld. A.R. After taking all these contentions of the Ld. A.R./assessee, and after perusing the documents, it is seen that the consideration per bigha amounting to ₹ 41,00,000/- was never the intention of the assessee and the same was not paid by the assessee as observed by the Assessing Officer. The correct or the original consideration amount was properly placed before the AO. These documents were never taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). Merely on the basis of statement of the assessee, which was later on retracted, the Assessing Officer has made an addition which is not a correct method of making any addition. Short term capital gain - addition u/s 50C - Additional statement that no co-owners were examined in the present case by the AO - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence for adapting exorbitant price in respect of per bigha/per sq. mtr. In fact, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of ₹ 45.50 lakhs as unexplained investment in land at Kalol relying on alleged notarised banakhat accompanied to TEP and statement of Notary etc. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the addition of ₹ 45.50 lakhs in land as unexplained investment. 3.1 The observations made and conclusion reached by both the lower authorities so as to hold that the appellant had made unexplained investment in land are not admitted by the appellant in so far as the same were contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record or prejudicial to the Appellant.. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of ₹ 45.50 lakhs upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 3. Firstly we are taking the facts of Assessment Year 2009-10. Return of income was filed on 29.06.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 5,01,950/-. The assessee is deriving income from salary and income from other sources during the present assessment year. Survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 17.09.2010. Summon under section 131(1) of the Act was issued on the assessee for recoding statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 133A was conducted on 17.09.2010 at Juna Chora Pase, Kalol, based on the contents of the tax evasion petition. The statement of the assessee was recorded on 17.09.2010 by issuing summons under Section 131(1), but his statement remained un-concluded and the assessee was allowed to go at late night. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee vide letter dated 15.11.2010 requested the Authorised Officer to complete the said statement. Ultimately, a fresh summon was issued under Section 131(1A) to appear on 22.09.2010. The assessee was told by the Assessing Officer that the said Assessing Officer was temporarily Incharge of this case. Thereafter, the ITO (Inv.), Mehsana issued summons under Section 131 on 20.12.2010 and recorded his statement on 22.12.2010. The assessee appeared in response to the said summon and his statement was recorded accordingly. The assessee vide letter dated 22.12.2010 asked for various documents such as copy of notarised Banakhat which was attached with tax evasion petition, copy of his statement was recorded on 22.10.2010. The Assessing Officer failed to give copies of these documents till completion of the assessment and also has not given complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not at all furnished to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the incomplete statement was given on 08.02.2013 which was immediately retracted by the assessee on 22.02.2013. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the addition will not sustain as there was no undisclosed investment done by the assessee at any point of time. In fact, the Banakhat was an arrangement between the assessee and the party for obtaining VISA at the end of the owner of the land. Afterwards the said transaction never took place and, therefore, the addition cannot be sustained. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is an employee of Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited. The assessee has entered into a Banakhat with Shri Manilal Tribhovandas Trivedi and others but the same Banakhat was understanding between the parties as per the submissions of the Ld. A.R. during the hearing. The contentions of the Ld. A.R. that the consideration at ₹ 41,00,000/- per bigha is exorbitant consideration and the said page or the document was never signed by the assessee at any point of time befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
