Registered sale deed prevails over later statements when computing capital gains on immovable property, barring uncorroborated extra consideration claims.

A registered sale deed fixed the transfer consideration at Rs. 3,00,000, and the attempt to substitute Rs. 3,50,000 on the basis of the purchaser's later statement and affidavit failed for lack of contemporaneous corroboration. The later disclosure was not accepted as proof of any extra payment, especially where no enquiry established the source of funds and the assessee consistently denied receipt of more than the documented amount. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act barred proof of the transaction terms by evidence outside the written instrument, so the sale deed controlled the computation of capital gains and the alleged addition of Rs. 50,000 was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for computing capital gains on the sale of immovable property, the sale consideration could be taken at Rs. 3,50,000 on the basis of the purchaser's subsequent statement and affidavit, despite the registered sale deed showing consideration of Rs. 3,00,000.

Analysis: The registered sale deed recorded the consideration as Rs. 3,00,000, and there was no contemporaneous material to support the alleged extra payment of Rs. 50,000. The purchaser's later disclosure and affidavit were not accepted as sufficient proof, particularly when no enquiry was made into the source of funds and the assessee consistently denied receipt of any additional amount. The Court also held that Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act barred proof of the terms of the disposition by evidence outside the document itself, so the written sale deed controlled the matter.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 50,000 was not sustainable, and the sale consideration had to be taken at Rs. 3,00,000 only, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a transfer of property is evidenced by a registered document, its terms cannot be displaced by uncorroborated oral or subsequent statements in view of the bar under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.

---