Tribunal emphasizes evidence over retracted statements in appeal decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that delay in filing was condoned due to compelling circumstances, and no addition could be justified based solely on a retracted statement without corroborative evidence. The burden of proof lay on the revenue to establish the genuineness of sale consideration, with valid sale deed prevailing over oral evidence. The Tribunal upheld the legal sanctity of the sale deed, deleting the addition made on the basis of invalid oral evidence without documentary support.

---

---

Issues: Whether an addition to income could be sustained solely on the basis of a statement recorded during survey, later retracted in cross-examination, without corroboration and in the face of a duly executed sale deed showing the agreed consideration.

Analysis: The addition was based on an oral statement recorded during survey which was later retracted. The sale deed was a direct documentary record of the transaction and showed the agreed consideration. The revenue did not bring credible corroborative evidence to prove receipt of any amount over and above the consideration stated in the deed. The burden to establish understatement of consideration lay on the revenue, and uncorroborated oral evidence could not displace the written instrument. The principles of burden of proof and the best evidence rule, as reflected in the Evidence Act and applied in income-tax proceedings, supported reliance on the documentary evidence rather than a retracted statement.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained on the basis of the retracted and uncorroborated statement, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the sale consideration is fixed by a valid written conveyance, it cannot be substituted in income-tax proceedings on the basis of a retracted oral statement unless the revenue proves, by cogent corroborative evidence, that higher consideration was actually received.

---