TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as income from other sources and of total sale consideration of Rs. 10 Crore offered for capital gains. 4. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the Affidavit given by the assessee before the Income Tax Authority and also erred in not considering the statement of the assessee before the ADIT (Inv.), and further erred in not appreciating the theory of preponderance of evidence. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held the total sale consideration at Rs. 10 Crores and should have allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 54 at Rs. 8,11,50,100/- as claimed on the strength of Affidavit filed by the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary." 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 28.10.2009 declaring the taxable income at Rs. 79,50,703/- comprising of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 74,96,508/- and income from Other Sources of Rs. 4,54,195/- and claimed refund of Rs. 28,04,218/-.The return of income was ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant filed the return of income disclosing her share of consideration of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and claimed the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. On similar lines, the appellant's daughter Smt. N.Dhanalaxmi also filed her return of income. While the matter stood thus, the reassessment proceedings were initiated in the circumstances mentioned supra. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the oral gift is not valid in law and, therefore, he proposed to assess the entire sale consideration only in the hands of appellant alone. In response to this proposal, the appellant along with her daughter, Smt. N.Dhanalaxmi filed an affidavit averring inter alia that they sold the property for Rs. 10,00,00,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was received in cash and in order to avoid litigation and buy peace with the department, agreed for assessment of entire sale consideration in the hands of appellant alone. It was further averred that they acquired another residential property out of sale consideration in the joint names of the appellant and her daughter for a sum of Rs. 8,11,50,100/- and sought exemption u/s. 54 of the Act to the extent of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The appellant had raised as many as six grounds of appeal out of which ground No.1 and 6 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. Grounds Nos.2, 3 and 4 are pertaining to addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" and Ground No.5 is pertaining to relief under Section 54 of the Act. 8. Now, we shall deal with the ground relating to addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. The learned Counsel for Appellant argued that having regard to the probabilities of human conduct, it is not imaginable that the appellant could have earned Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from any other source, especially when the appellant was ailing from the nervous disorders and bedridden. The appellant also filed a photograph of the appellant when she was in the hospital undergoing treatment for the ailment. It was further submitted before us that the appellant was uneducated and unskilled and there was no probability of earning a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- from undisclosed sources and, therefore, no addition should be made under the head "Income from Other Sources" u/s. 69 of the Act. In support of this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usal of the Sale Deed reveals the full details of the buyer. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the appellant failed to furnish the name of the buyer of the property, Assessing Officer had failed to carry out further investigation on the matter. Perhaps, the Assessing Officer as well as ADIT (Investigation) had chosen not to make further enquiries on being satisfied with the disclosure of higher consideration than was stated in the conveyance deed or in the sale deed. The statement made before ADIT (Investigation) remains uncontroverted. Simply because it was found subsequently that this statement goes against the interests of Revenue, it is not open to Revenue to reject the evidence. It is settled principles of law that in assessment proceedings, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to ignore that part of evidence, which goes against him in the process of making addition. 11. It is also prevalent practice that in the land transactions, sometimes, the consideration was paid over and above the amounts stated in the Sale Deeds. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was having any other source of income or the appellant is capable of earning that much of ....