RAJINDER KUMAR HAK vs.INCOME TAX OFFICER
AMRITSAR TRIBUNAL
A.D. JAIN, JM.
ITA No. 507(Asr)/2014
Feb 26, 2016
(2016) 46 cch 0174 AsrTrib
Legislation Referred to
Section 50C
Case pertains to
Asst. Year 2005-06
Decision in favour of:
Assessee
Addition—Addition on account of unexplained
investment—Assessment was made u/s 143(3) on basis of information received from
ADIT Jammu that assessee had purchased certain flat from ’C’ for Rs 17.50
lacs—As per statement seized during course of search operation of ’C’, Assessee
had made payments of Rs 8.50 lakhs by cheque and Rs 9 lakhs in cash—AO asked
assessee to explain source of investments of Rs 17.50 lakhs made in cash and by
cheque—Assessee however, could not explain source of Rs 50,000 paid to society
and Rs 1,00,000 deposited in bank as margin money—AO assessed investment at Rs
18.50 lacs by making addition of Rs 10.50 lakhs as unexplained
investment—CIT(A) confirmed addition made by AO—Held,assessment order did not
find any mention that said information regarding other allottees was ever put
to assessee—Details of said receipts of other allottees were also missing in
short assessment order—No nexus between case of assessee and those of alleged
other allottees was established by AO—CIT(A) admitted that papers/list of
alleged allottees had not been recovered from assessee in search operations—It
had been stated by CIT(A) that veracity of paper could not be
questioned—Firstly, as noted, impugned paper was not computer generated
document, but, undisputedly had merely been typed on computer, rendering it as
of no evidentiary value against assessee so far as regards alleged
understatement of purchase price—Then, as also earlier observed, said paper was
ridden with numerous discrepancies which CIT(A) had not even attempted to
meet—That said paper was not in hand-writing of assessee and it did not belong
to assessee—Impugned paper did not contain date on which alleged cash payment
had been made by assessee—CIT(A) merely observed that date of agreement and due
date of payment mentioned in seized document fell in year under consideration
and therefore, there was no reason to consider plea of assessee that payment
could have been made in subsequent year—Observation of CIT(A) was wholly
against facts as discussed, which had not been rebutted by CIT(A)—There was no
rebuttal to assessee’s contention that only token amounts of Rs.20,000 and
Rs.30,000 were paid which fell in F.Y. 2004-05—Payment of Rs.8,00,000 was made
vide demand draft issued by UCO Bank which fell in F.Y. 2005-06—Receipts issued
by Society qua three payments were placed on record by assessee—However,
payment of Rs. 8,00,000 had still been taken by CIT(A) to have been made in
F.Y. 2004-05, quite against record and without any basis—It is required to
mention here that this amount of Rs. 8,00,000 was paid at time of registration
of sale deed with Registering Authority—Sale deed executed on 18.05.2005
specified in no uncertain terms, the purchase consideration to be at
Rs.8,50,000—Sale deed was admittedly registered one—As against this document,
there was nothing on record, other than assumptions and presumptions of AO and
CIT(A), which was also contradictory inter-se—There was no material on record
to suggest any understatement of purchase price of flat by Assessee—Purchase
value stood accepted as such by Registering Authority too, besides, provisions
of s 50C also did not stand invoked—Impugned Order was passed on merely
assumptions and presumptions, without any corroborative evidence to support
observations made by CIT(A)—Addition made by AO was thus deleted—Assessee’s
Appeal allowed
Held
CIT(A) admitted that the
papers/list of alleged allottees had not been recovered from the assessee in
the search operations. However, in the same breath, it has been stated by the ld.
CIT(A) that the veracity of the paper could not be questioned. Firstly, as
noted, this paper was not a computer generated document, but, undisputedly had
merely been typed on a computer, rendering it as of no evidentiary value
against the assessee so far as regards the alleged understatement of purchase
price. Then, as also earlier observed, the said paper is ridden with numerous
discrepancies which the ld. CIT(A) has not even attempted to meet. It goes
without saying that the said paper was not in the hand-writing of the assessee
and it did not belong to the assessee. It did not contain the date on which the
alleged cash payment had been made by the assessee.
(Para 13)
CIT(A) merely observed that
the date of agreement and due date of payment mentioned in the seized document
fell in the year under consideration and therefore, there was no reason to
consider the plea of the assessee that the payment could have been made in the
subsequent year. This observation of the ld. CIT(A) is wholly against the facts
as discussed, which facts have not been rebutted by the ld. CIT(A).
(Para 15)
There is no rebuttal to the
assessee’s contention that only token amounts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/-
were paid on 17.09.2004 & 21.12.2004 respectively, which fell in the F.Y. 2004-05.
The payment of Rs.8,00,000/- was made vide demand draft issued by UCO Bank on
19.05.2005, which fell in the F.Y. 2005-06. The receipts issued by the Society
qua the three payments were placed on record by the assessee. However, the
payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- has still been taken by the ld. CIT(A) to have been
made in F.Y. 2004-05, quite against the record and without any basis. It
requires mention here that this amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid at the time
of registration of the sale deed with the Registering Authority.
(Para 16)
As against the above, the
sale deed executed on 18.05.2005 specifies in no uncertain terms, the purchase
consideration to be at Rs.8,50,000/-. This sale deed is admittedly a registered
one. The contents thereof are duly sworn before the Magistrate. As against this
document, there is nothing on record, other than the above discussed
assumptions and presumptions of the AO and the ld. CIT(A), which also are
contradictory inter-se. There is no material on record to suggest any understatement
of the purchase price of the flat by the assessee. The purchase value stands
accepted as such by the Registering Authority too. Besides, the provisions of
section 50C of the Act also do not stand invoked.
(Para 17)
Thus, looked at from any angle,
the order under appeal is unsustainable in law. It has been passed on merely
assumptions and presumptions, without any corroborative evidence to support the
observations made. The same, is accordingly, reversed. The addition of
Rs.10,50,000/- is, accordingly, deleted.
(Para 18)
Conclusion
Where paper on basis of which addition was made, was not computer
generated document but merely typed on computer, rendering it as of no
evidentiary value against Assessee and addition was made on merely assumptions
and presumptions, without any corroborative evidence, same were justified to be
set aside.
In favour of
