Appeal dismissed: concurrent findings upheld that registered sale deed showed Rs.6.75 lakh consideration; assessee failed to prove Rs.20.8 lakh

HC dismissed the appeal, upholding concurrent factual findings that the registered sale deed's recital showed consideration of Rs. 6.75 lakh for agricultural land. Authorities (Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority, ITAT) relied on the deed and evidence; burden lay on the assessee to prove a higher cash consideration of Rs. 20.8 lakh. The court held the dispute was one of appreciation of evidence, not a substantial question of law, and therefore declined to reappraise or interfere with the concurrent findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Dispute regarding the assessment of income tax on cash deposits made by the assessee.

Summary:

On the issue of condonation of delay, the High Court, after considering the cause shown in the application, decided to condone the delay and allowed Application No. 869/2022.

Regarding the income tax appeal, it arose from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning cash deposits made by the assessee. The department noticed cash deposits of Rs. 19,00,500/- and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, leading to the reopening of assessment. An amount of Rs. 12,22,000/- was added to the income, which was upheld in subsequent appeals.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal's finding was perverse and opposed to law. The appellant claimed a sale consideration of Rs. 20,80,000/- based on registered sale deed and oral evidence. However, the Tribunal relied on the sale deed showing a consideration of Rs. 6.75 lacs. The authorities considered the evidence and concluded that the burden was on the assessee to prove the higher consideration, especially as the deposits were made in cash.

The High Court noted that all authorities had considered the evidence and reached their findings on the sale consideration. As the case did not involve any substantial question of law, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal.

---