TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns admitting the income as under : Assessment year Return filed on Income admitted 2002-03 23-9-2009 1,81,925 2003-04 23-9-2009 4,52,752 2004-05 23-9-2009 8,01,127 2005-06 23-9-2009 8,22,294 2006-07 23-9-2009 28,70,595 2007-08 23-9-2009 1,15,171 2008-09 21-10-2009 2,70,950 4. The AO noted that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary and house property. She had not filed her return for asst. yr. 2003-04 originally. However, in the return filed in response to the notice under s. 153C, an income of Rs. 4,52,752 was admitted for that assessment year. The AO found that in the course of search at the residence of Sri C. Radha Krishna Kumar, it was noticed that the assessee had purchased a property, bearing plot No. 304-O, Road No. 78, Jubilee Hills, from Smt. K. Rajani Kumari, w/o Sri Radha Krishna Kumar, for a recorded consideration of Rs. 65 lakhs. However, as per the seized diary (Annexure A/CRK/04), the actual consideration received by Smt. K. Rajani Kumari was recorded at Rs. 165 lakhs as against the consideration of Rs. 65 lakhs in the registered sale deed. Thus, there was '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e entries relating to cheque payments stating that the same matched with the registered sale deed. However, in respect of the cash payments mentioned therein, the assessee stated that she did not know the details thereof and that she did not have complete knowledge of the cash payments amounting to Rs. 1 crore, which was not mentioned in the registered sale deed, since the transaction had been negotiated that the amounts had been arranged by her brothers. She finally stated that her brothers would be able to explain the total consideration paid, as she was not involved in arranging the purchase transaction and even the finance had been arranged by her brothers. She even said that she was not aware whether any agreement of sale had been entered into with Smt. K. Rajani Kumari, the seller, or not. 7. In view of the above, the AO issued summons to the assessee's brother Sri K.V. Sreerama Murthy and recorded a statement from him during the course of search on 20th Nov., 2007. In his statement, Sri Murthy stated that the purchase consideration for the above property was Rs. 65 lakhs only. When confronted with the seized diary, he admitted that some of the entries appearing therei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ari, the seller of the property, in her return of income for asst. yr. 2002-04 proved that 'on-money' payment was involved in the sale of the property under reference. 10. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee's representative was asked to furnish the details of payments made by the assessee for the purchase of the property. In response, it was still submitted by him that the assessee was not aware of the amounts involved, as the transaction had been negotiated by her brothers. He also maintained that the purchase consideration of Rs. 65 lakhs had been arranged by the assessee's brother but denied any 'on-money' payment. It was pleaded that the assessee or her brothers do not have any sources for the payment of 'on-money' to the tune of Rs. 1 crore. He also argued that no proof or evidence was found during the course of search evidencing payment of such money by the assessee or her family members. Accordingly, it was claimed that the assessee or her family members had nothing to do with the entries made by Smt. K. Rajani Kumari in her diary and the same could not be treated as an evidence to conclude that they had paid 'on-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e seized diary. Contrary to this, when the sworn statement was recorded from the assessee on 15th Nov., 2007, she stated that she was not aware of the actual consideration paid for purchase of property. The transaction was negotiated by her brothers Shri K.V. Sreerama Murthy and Shri K.V. Dakshina Murthy. She stated that she has no knowledge about the material recorded in the seized material found at the premises of C. Radha Krishna Kumar. Further the statement was recorded from Shri K.V. Sreerama Murthy on 20th Nov., 2007 who has stated that the consideration was only Rs. 65 lakhs and he does not know why or who made these entries in the diary shown to him. He and his father had paid only purchase consideration of Rs. 65 lakhs as recorded in the sale deed. In spite of this, the AO considered the total payment at Rs. 1,65,00,000 which includes an entry relating to pronote of Rs. 25 lakhs. In our opinion, there is no evidence other than the seized material marked as 'A/CRK/04' where relevant entries are made at Rs. 1,65,00,000. The seized material was not found at the premises of the assessee and there is no corroborative material to suggest that the assessee has actually pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no conclusive presumption to say that actual consideration passed on between the parties is actually Rs. 165 lakhs. In the present case the assessee as well as her brothers stated in their respective statements that the consideration passed between the parties is only Rs. 65 lakhs. In spite of this the AO proceeded to conclude that the seized material is conclusively reflecting the payment of consideration at Rs. 165 lakhs. The Department herein is required to establish the nexus of the seized material to the assessee. As stated earlier there is no date and name of the assessee. The allegation of the Department is that the seized material denotes the payment made by the assessee to the purchaser for purchase of the property. However, we find no such narration or name of the assessee in the seized material. The Department is not able to unearth any document or material or any corroborative material to show that the assessee herein actually paid Rs. 165 lakhs for purchase of the property. The Department has not brought on record the date on which the payment was made and the source from which it is paid and/or any details of bank account from where the cash was withdrawn. Without an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 lakhs towards on-money payment. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 100 lakhs is deleted. 16. The next ground is with regard to addition of Rs. 5 lakhs which was received from the assessee's father. The brief facts of the issue are that the assessee is said to have received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from her father late Sri K.V. Mallikarjun Rao which was treated as not genuine and the AO made the addition towards this amount. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee's father was no more and as such the assessee was unable to produce the confirmation letter. However, the Department has not doubted the fact that the gift was received from her father. According to the assessee's counsel the gift has been given on account of natural love and affection to settle the life of the assessee. We have carefully examined the facts of the case. In our opinion, out of natural love and affection to settle the life of his daughter assessee's father has given the gift of Rs. 5 lakhs. We find no reason to sustain this addition. Accordingly placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala[2007] 291 ITR 278 wher....