2015 (8) TMI 1140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing a farmer and his contention that the land was transferred in his name without any consideration, whereas the sale deeds Nos. 3535/2008 and 3536/2008 clearly show that full consideration amounting to Rs. 22,35,000 and Rs. 84,28,000 was paid by the assessee to Shri S.N. Thakur and also the fact that Rs. 1,34,100 and Rs. 5,05,700 was also expanded towards payment of stamp duty for this transaction involving the land transferred in the name of the assessee. 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer noted from the information available with him that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... name of assessee without any consideration. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that no agriculture income was declared by the assessee in the return of income and further no evidence was filed on the claim that he is a farmer. He noted further that sale deeds Nos. 3535 and 3536/2008 show that full consideration amounting to Rs. 22,35,000 and Rs. 84,28,000 was paid by the assessee to Shri S.N. Thakur. Apart from this, Rs. 1,34,100 and Rs. 5,05,700 was incurred towards stamp duty. On the basis of the above stated sale deeds, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the above stated payments were made by the assessee. He accordingly held that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 13,02,800 in the purchase of agricultural land from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid down therein suppots the case of the present assessee wherein an MOU was entered by K.T.C. Developers Pvt. Ltd. with its directors/shareholders dated 05.07.2007, declaring that the land/property bought in the name of the director shall be the sole property of the company. Almost similar were the facts in the case of CIT vs. Abinash Kant (supra)(Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court). In that case, assessee had deposited huge cash in his bank account. On being asked to explain the source of deposit, the assessee contended that he made purchase and sale of property on behalf of his HUF. Assessing Officer noticed that agreement for sale of properties were made by the assessee in his individual name and bank account was also maintained in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....N. Thakur and transferred by the S.N. Thakur in the name of the appellant are shown in the audited balance sheet of M/s. KTC Dev. Pvt. Ltd. The affidavit dt. 1.10.2010 of Sh. S.N. Thakur to the affect that the transfer of lands to the appellant without consideration was as per the policy of the company and for administrative reasons also re-in-force the above. The MOU entered by M/s. KTC Dev. Pvt. Ltd. with its Directors/shareholders dated 5.7.2007 declaring that the land/property bought in the name of Directors shall be the sole property of the company evidences this fact. The stamp duty and registration fee has been paid by the company, as evident from the bank statement. The fact that though the lands have been in the names of Sh. S.N. ....