9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the witness and assessee. It is settled practice that after chief examination of witness the other party is entitled to cross examination as per provisions of evidence Act which has not been done in this case. Evidence of a witness through examination or cross-examination is required to be done as per Sections 137 to 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, we observe that there was no separate examination or cross examination done. The Hon ble supreme court in the case of Chuharmal [ 1988 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court pointed out that the rigours of rule of evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to the Income-tax Act, but on first principles and on general law, the principles of Evidence Act can be applied to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. Nothing concrete found against the assessee during so called cross examination and both parties contradicts veracity of statement of each other. Other two sons of deceased seller were not examined. If we accept the version of sons of deceased seller then why they had not filed their respective return of income despi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICIAL MEMBER) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060244741 (1) dated 30.01.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Tiruchengode for the assessment year 2010-11 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ), vide order dated 21.12.2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and earned income from dairy activities. The assessing officer alleged that during the year the assessee has purchased 6 acres of agricultural land on 09-02- 2010 from Shri. K.C. Sivalingam of kalipatti village for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/-. On verification of the Data base, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the Asst. Year 2010-11. Hence Assessing Officer had reopened the case and stated that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2010-11 within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax. At, 1961. The AO, after getting necessary approval from the higher authorities issued notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a summons dated 12.11.2018 to the assessee was issued and a sworn statement was recorded from him on 16.11.2018 20.11.2018 wherein he deposed that, he had purchased 6.16 acres of land from Shri. K.C. Sivalingam for the total consideration of Rs. 10,80,000/- only. Thereafter, based on the sworn statement recorded from the purchaser and the sellers a Cross Examination proceeding was conducted on 20.11.2018. Further, as requested by the assessee summons u/s. 131 of the Act dated 20.11.2018 was issued to the above two witness and a sworn statement was recorded from him on 28.11.2018. Shri. P. Velayuthan one of the witness who has signed in the sale deed has deposed that for this transaction the sellers had received Rs. 90,00,000/- from the buyer Shri. E. Shanmugasundaram by way of cash in the assessee's residence at Kalipatty, but other witness Shri.G. Sivasubramanian deposed that this agricultural land was registered in two documents for the registered value of Rs. 4,60,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- thus the total registered value comes to Rs. 5,85,000/- and the same value of cash of Rs. 5,85,000/- was given to Late Shri. K.C. Sivalingam in the Registrar Office. Therefore, on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on account of following reasons: I. There is no documentary evidence unearthed by the AO which could show that the assessee had paid huge amount over and above the sale consideration mentioned in both sale deeds dated 09.02.2010; II. Market value of the property fixed by the Sub-Registrar office is Rs. 9,99,000/- for the both are find mentioned in last page of each sale deeds; III. On first principles and on general law, the principles of evidence Act has not been applied by the AO in this case. In this case, questions were asked by the AO and had been simultaneously, replied by the witness and assessee. It is settled practice that after chief examination of witness the other party is entitled to cross examination as per provisions of evidence Act which has not been done in this case. Evidence of a witness through examination or cross-examination is required to be done as per Sections 137 to 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, we observe that there was no separate examination or cross examination done. The Hon ble supreme court in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) held that the Evidence Act d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
