2008 (2) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the appeal of the department and upholding the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the additions made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land by the assessee ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law in reversing the finding recorded by the learned assessing officer that in the transaction of land in question, the sale consideration received was a sum of Rs. 61,00,000, as against Rs. 9,00,000 on the basis of admission of the seller corroborated by independent witnesses and material on record ? 3. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to record and perverse ?" 2. Bereft of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt piece ofevidence. But it cannot be stated that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. Needless tosay that this is the law laid by the Highest court of this country in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors.[1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) " Then, even giving apart other reasons, reason (g) has again been given as under : "(g) There is no evidence on record which can prove that any amount was paid to this appellant except the retracted statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Soni." 4. Thus, the entire case was sought to be hanged by the revenue on the peg of statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, said to have been recorded from time to time, who had given v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n view of the provisions of section 32 of the Evidence Act. It was also contended that even an independent enquiry was got conducted, wherein the learned Dy. CIT had found, that the valuation of the land was not above the one, as shown in the sale deed, and thus, no interference is required to be made. 7. We have considered the submissions, and after going through the impugned orders, are of the view that all said and done, the question as to what was the price of the land at the relevant time, is a pure question of fact. Apart from the fact, that even if, it were to be assumed, that the price of the land was different than the one, recited in the sale deed, unless it is established on record by the department, that as a matter of fact, ....