Validity of Unsigned Agreement Upheld for Sale Consideration; Retracted Statements Deemed Invalid; Capital Gains Assessment Confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the unsigned draft agreement as evidence for determining the sale consideration of Rs. 3.06 crores. The retraction of statements by the legal heir was deemed invalid, and the property issues were considered known and factored into the agreed sale price. The Tribunal confirmed the assessment of undisclosed long-term capital gains based on the higher sale consideration, dismissing the appeal and upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of unsigned draft agreement as evidence for sale consideration.
2. Determination of actual sale consideration for capital gains computation.
3. Validity of retraction of statements by the legal heir.
4. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of unsigned draft agreement as evidence for sale consideration:
The unsigned draft agreement dated 25.08.2004 indicated a sale consideration of Rs. 3.06 crores for the property. The assessee argued that this was merely a draft for negotiation purposes and had no legal sanctity. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that the document could not be ignored as it was corroborated by contemporaneous evidence, including the payment of an advance of Rs. 9 lakhs by cheque and the subsequent sale to the same vendee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the unsigned agreement, found during the search, was valid evidence and not a "dumb document."

2. Determination of actual sale consideration for capital gains computation:
The AO assessed the difference of Rs. 1,58,76,500 between the sale agreement (Rs. 3.06 crores) and the registered sale deeds (Rs. 1.47 crores) as undisclosed long-term capital gains. The assessee contended that the property had various issues like Urban Land Ceiling (ULC), boundary disputes, and high-tension electric lines, which justified the lower sale consideration. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that these issues were known at the time of the agreement, and the sale consideration of Rs. 3.06 crores was agreed upon despite these problems. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt Rs. 3.06 crores as the sale consideration for computing capital gains.

3. Validity of retraction of statements by the legal heir:
Sri M.A. Chary, the legal heir, initially accepted the sale consideration of Rs. 3.06 crores in his sworn statement but later retracted, stating the figure was incorrect due to property issues. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the retraction invalid, considering it an afterthought. The primary statement made during the search was given on confronting various documents and was deemed more credible. The Tribunal cited judicial precedents where delayed retractions were not allowed, supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to disregard the retraction.

4. Applicability of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that the AO could not enhance the sale value beyond the guideline value under Section 50C. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not specifically address this argument but focused on the evidentiary value of the unsigned agreement and the corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the sale consideration of Rs. 3.06 crores based on the agreement and other corroborative evidence, implicitly rejecting the applicability of Section 50C in this context.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the order of the CIT(A). The unsigned draft agreement was considered valid evidence for determining the sale consideration of Rs. 3.06 crores. The retraction by the legal heir was deemed invalid, and the issues with the property were known and factored into the agreed sale price. The Tribunal upheld the assessment of undisclosed long-term capital gains based on the higher sale consideration.

---