Appeal dismissed: undisclosed investment confirmed when genuine receipt found showing payment to sister-in-law for property rights

HC dismissed appeal regarding undisclosed investment in family property acquisition. Revenue authorities found receipt during search showing sister-in-law received payment from assessee for her property rights. ITAT concluded certificate from sister-in-law unreliable as she was supporting brother-in-law's case. Court held once genuine receipt exists without denial, full payment presumed made. Subsequent payments by assessee to sister-in-law from 2003-2006 deemed irrelevant as made after search and contained no reference to remaining dues. ITAT order upheld.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involves the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as undisclosed income in the appellant-assessee's case, based on the confirmation filed by the sister-in-law and the subsequent disagreement between the CIT (A) and the ITAT regarding the addition.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The appellant argued that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was unjustified as the sister-in-law confirmed the outstanding amount due through receipts and bank statements, which the Income Tax authorities failed to consider.

2. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not conduct any inquiry with the sister-in-law to verify the truth, making the addition perverse. The ITAT set aside the CIT (A) order without sufficient grounds, according to the appellant.

3. The revenue supported the ITAT's decision, stating that it is the final fact-finding authority and should not be interfered with by the Court merely due to differing conclusions.

4. The Court noted that during search operations, the CIT had added Rs. 5,00,000/- as undisclosed investment made by the appellant to acquire rights in the family property, leading to a total undisclosed income of Rs. 55,97,070/- for the block period.

5. The CIT (A) initially set aside the addition based on the sister-in-law's confirmation, but the ITAT disagreed, concluding that the amount had already been paid by the appellant without disclosing the source.

6. A family settlement from 1991 stipulated payments to be made to joint owners of ancestral property, including the sister-in-law. The ITAT found that the sister-in-law had been paid the due amount, based on receipts and possession handover.

7. The ITAT rejected the reliance on a certificate issued by the sister-in-law post-search, as it appeared biased in favor of the appellant. The Court found the ITAT's decision reasonable and not perverse.

8. The appellant's subsequent payments to the sister-in-law were deemed irrelevant as they were made after the search and initial findings by the Assessing Officer.

9. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Court emphasized that the ITAT's findings on facts should not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, which was not the case here.

10. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the ITAT's decision, and all pending applications were also dismissed.

---