Excess sale consideration taxed as income from other sources; purchaser's excess payment remanded for limited verification, penalty deleted.

Excess consideration received over the registered sale deed value was held taxable in the seller's hands as income from other sources, because the declared deed terms could not be contradicted by oral evidence and surrounding circumstances showed the higher receipt was part of the transfer transaction. The purchaser's unexplained excess payment was also accepted in principle, but the matter was remanded to verify the source and quantify only the limited excess, including any amount attributable to subsequent resale proceeds. Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was not leviable on the seller, as the receipt had been disclosed and the tax treatment was based on a bona fide belief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount received over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deeds was taxable in the hands of the seller, and if so, under which head of income. (ii) Whether the purchaser's unexplained payment over and above the registered sale consideration was liable to addition, and to what extent. (iii) Whether penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was leviable on the seller.

Issue (i): Whether the amount received over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deeds was taxable in the hands of the seller, and if so, under which head of income.

Analysis: The sale transaction was found to be supported by surrounding circumstances showing that the registered deeds reflected only the declared consideration, while the excess amount was in fact received in connection with the transfer. The Court applied the statutory regime governing registered transfers of immovable property and the evidentiary bar against contradicting a written and registered instrument by oral evidence. It further relied on the principles of best evidence and estoppel, holding that the parties could not disown the terms of the registered document after having acted upon it. The excess receipt was therefore not treated as part of capital gains from the land transaction.

Conclusion: The excess amount was taxable in the seller's hands as income from other sources, and the deletion of the addition was reversed.

Issue (ii): Whether the purchaser's unexplained payment over and above the registered sale consideration was liable to addition, and to what extent.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the purchaser had made payment beyond the recorded consideration, but it also noticed that part of the funds used for such payment could have been generated from subsequent resale of the property. Since the lower authorities had not examined this limited aspect of quantification, the matter required further verification only on the source of the excess payment and not on the existence of such payment itself.

Conclusion: The addition against the purchaser was not finally upheld or deleted; the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for limited quantification.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was leviable on the seller.

Analysis: Although the excess receipt was held taxable in the seller's hands, the seller had disclosed the receipt as having arisen from sale of agricultural land and had proceeded on a bona fide belief regarding its tax treatment. The Court held that the facts did not justify a finding of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars for penalty purposes.

Conclusion: Penalty under the concealment provision was not leviable and the deletion of penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The seller succeeded on taxability in favour of the Revenue, the purchaser's addition was sent back only for limited re-examination of quantification, and the penalty deletion was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered sale deed cannot be contradicted by oral evidence to defeat its declared terms, but excess consideration proved by surrounding circumstances may be taxed according to its real character; penalty does not automatically follow where the assessee acted under a bona fide belief and disclosed the underlying receipt.

---