2013-VIL-670-AP-DT

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

ITAT APPEAL NO.232 OF 2013

Date: 10.07.2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – IV, HYDERABAD

Vs

SMT. R. NALINI DEVI

BENCH

SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND MS. G. ROHINI, JJ.

JUDGMENT

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

This appeal is sought to be preferred on the following suggested questions of law:

1. “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT is justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without duly taking into consideration all the materials/documents seized during the course of search and statement of the assessee recorded during the course of search;

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, without appreciating that a copy of the sale agreement dated 19.5.2002 seized vide Annexure A/RNLD/1 from the assessee’s premises clearly indicates that the sale agreement was signed by the assessee (vendor) as well as the vendee?

3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, without appreciating that a copy of the receipt dated 19.5.2002 signed by the assessee and her two sons and witnessed by assessee’s spouse evidencing the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs as advance from the vendee towards the sale of plot, was seized vide annexure A/RNLD/1 from the assessee premises, which also confirms that advance was received by the assessee as mentioned in clause 2 on page 2 of the sale agreement?”

This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.18.9.2012, in relation to assessment year 2004-05. Two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by common judgment and order involving questions of fact and law.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.

It appears, the Assessing Officer had relied on a photocopy of an unsigned sale agreement in order to find that consideration amount has been paid at Rs.1,68,00,000/-. Therefore, this amount was not disclosed. The learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that unsigned photocopy of the agreement for purchase of the property cannot be a material to rely on, when the registered sale deed has been produced and the same shows that the property was purchased at a price of Rs.23,50,000/-. This registered sale deed was disclosed at the time of original assessment. According to us, the agreement of sale loses its force, the moment registered sale deed is executed. If the property has been purchased at a higher price than that of mentioned in the purchase deed, then the onus is on the Assessing Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned in the sale deed. There must be some material and basis to conclude that the purchase has been made at an under valuation.

The other points decided by the learned Tribunal are on facts and such appreciation of facts cannot be gone into by this Court.

Therefore, we do not find any flaw in the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.