9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Briefly the facts are that the assessee is the wife of one Shri Ramesh K. Shah, who is a partner in the firm M/s Sunrise Sales Corporation. There was a search in the business and residential premises of the assessee's husband. In response to notice under s. 158BC, the assessee filed the return of income in Form No. 2B, declaring undisclosed income at nil. However, the AO while framing the assessment order dt. 26th Nov., 2001, has computed the undisclosed income at Rs. 3,55,000. The addition made is in relation to the purchase of property bearing No. 242/A, III block, West of Chord Road, IV Stage, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore, in terms of the sale deed dt. 12th April, 1991. The said sale deed was a part of the seized material. The AO noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies of the IT return, etc. for the asst. yr. 1992-93 in support of the submissions. With regard to the merits of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the contents of cl. 9(a) of the sale deed have been wrongly construed by the AO. The said clause reads as under: "9(a) Whereas even though the schedule property is agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 3,55,000 (Rupees three lakhs fifty five thousand only), the vendor and the purchaser have purchased stamp paper worth totally Rs. 42,600 only, since the Government of Karnataka has fixed the market value for the schedule property as Rs. 7,00,000 (Rupees seven lakhs only) as per the rate specified in the area. The vendor and the purchaser have paid additional stamp duty of Rs. 41,400 (Rup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Bai Baid vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 96 Taxman 24 (Nag)(Mag) and CIT vs. Nitin Kumar (2001) 167 CTR (P H) 433 : (2001) 248 ITR 478 (P H). The learned counsel also assailed the orders of the first appellate authority insomuch as that according to him, the contentions of the assessee have been merely brushed aside without examining the same in proper perspective. Our attention was drawn to the paper book filed which, inter alia, contains an affidavit dt. 28th Dec., 2001, sworn by the seller, Shri M.C. Ananda, which was filed before the CIT(A). It was submitted that as the AO had completed the assessment at the back of the assessee, the assessee approached the seller and procured the impugned affidavit which, inter alia, confirmed the sale consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income is to be assessed as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B, the same should fall within the definition of undisclosed income as provided for in s. 158B(b) of the Act. Undisclosed income in the said section has been defined to mean any money, bullion, jewellery, any other article or thing or any income based on any entry in the books of account or other documents, where such money, bullion, jewellery article, any entry in the books of account or other document represents wholly or partly the income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act. In other words, all those items which have already been disclosed by the assessee or would have been disclosed are outside the realm of undisclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rroborative evidence of the assessee having paid anything over and above the stated consideration or having established that the stated consideration was not the real consideration. The mere fact that the Government of Karnataka has notified, quantified for the purpose of stamp duty, certain values for various properties, cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee has understated the consideration or has paid anything over and above the stated consideration. Therefore, we are of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Revenue did not have any material or information or evidence in its possession to make the impugned addition. Hence, the same is deleted. We do not wish to deal with other te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee of having made the unexplained investment in the property is without any locus standi as the assessee is not the owner of the property. The Revenue does not have any corrobrative or any other evidence in its possession to prove that any unexplained investment has been made by the assessee in the said property. 9. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the efficacy of the impugned addition, in relation to its merits, can of best be adjudicated in the hands of the assessee who is the owner of the property being the member of the same group of cases. 10. The learned Departmental Representative on the order hand, had defended the order of the lower authorities, but however, did not fairly object t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
