Understated sale consideration: Revenue can rely on admissions and surrounding circumstances to prove the true transaction value.

In disputes over understatement of sale consideration, the Revenue may initially bear the burden of proving that the figure in the sale deed is not the transaction value, but that burden can be discharged through admissions, surrounding circumstances, presumptions of law and fact, and other material showing concealment. Here, the seller had admitted the higher consideration in his return and proceedings, and the assessee produced no evidence to rebut that position or show that the deed reflected the true bargain. The rule against oral evidence varying a document did not prevent reliance on third-party material in these facts. The addition was upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition towards the difference between the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed and the higher consideration admitted by the seller in his return could be sustained on the evidence on record, and whether the burden of proving the actual consideration stood discharged by the Revenue.

Analysis: The assessee challenged the addition on the ground that the registered sale deed showed a lower consideration and that oral or extrinsic material could not displace the document. The Court held that while the initial burden to prove a higher consideration lies on the Revenue, that burden may shift on the basis of surrounding circumstances, presumptions of law and fact, admissions, and other material indicating the true transaction. The seller had declared the higher consideration in his return, confirmed it in proceedings, and was available for cross-examination, while the assessee produced no evidence to show that the stated consideration in the deed represented the true market value or actual bargain. The Court also noted that the rule excluding oral evidence against a document does not prevent a third party from relying on material showing concealment of taxable income in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The Revenue successfully discharged the burden of proving that the consideration stated in the sale deed was not real, and the addition was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the assessee's challenge to the assessment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters concerning understatement of sale consideration, the Revenue may discharge its burden through admissions and surrounding circumstances, and once such material is accepted the burden shifts to the assessee to rebut the true consideration.

---