AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upheld by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C).No.13917 of 2009 dated 11.10.2011, in the case of M/s. Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd., vs. State of Haryana and another, and the contention of the assessee that the amount paid of Rs. 3,80,000 shown as advance is only a part payment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee could not prove by any cogent evidence that he had not paid any amount other than the amount claimed to have been paid, in the light of the fact that the property was valued at Rs. 66,50,000 by the SRO. 4. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing." Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature and therefore, it need not be adjudicated. 2. Brief facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sponse, the learned A.R. for the assessee furnished copy of sale deed and bank account statement of the assessee, in support of payment of Rs. 3,80,000 (being 1/3rd share on Rs. 11,40,000) made by the assessee to the land owner Mr. Sudha Kiran (vendor). The A.O. observed that as per the statement filed by the vendor Mr. Sudha Kiran before the SRO, Rajendra Nagar, the total market value of the above mentioned property as on the date of registration was at Rs. 66,50,000 and it is evident from the registered sale deed that the stamp duty of Rs. 5,89,470 and registration fee of Rs. 33,950 were paid by the assessee and his brothers on 09.03.2007 on the chargeable value of Rs. 66,50,000. Therefore, the A.O. called for explanation of assessee in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly on presumption and surmises and there is no documentary evidence before him that any extra consideration was paid by assessee and his brothers. Therefore, the A.O. is not justified in treating the stamp duty value of Rs. 66,50,000 as the consideration and that the A.O. had erroneously applied section 50C while invoking section 69B which had no basis. The Ld. CIT(A) after careful perusal of the provisions of section 50C and 69B of the Act, deleted the addition of Rs. 18,36,667 by observing that the A.O. has erred referring the provisions of section 50C, while applying the provisions of section 69B. Section 50C applies for computation of capital gains and consequently is applicable for the seller of a capital asset and not its purchaser as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first place. 5.4. The reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer in concluding that there was an investment over and above the amount recorded in the sale deed is at best tenuous and presumptive. The Assessing Officer has referred to the fact that the payment for the land was described in the statement of affairs as an 'advance' and that therefore, the sum of Rs. 3,80,000 could not be considered as full sale consideration. I do not agree with this view. Until such time that the land was registered in favour of the appellant, any payment made for it was required to be recorded as an advance whether it was a part payment or a full payment. The reference to the sum of Rs. 3,80,000 as an 'advance' cannot, therefore, lead to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. With respect to ground Nos.2 and 3, the case law relied on by the Revenue in the case of Amarkumari Surana vs. CIT (1996) 89 Taxmann 554 (Raj) was not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration was more than what was disclosed by the assessee. It is evident from the material on record that the sale consideration was at Rs. 11,40,000 which was received by the vendor. In my view mere payment of extra stamp duty to fulfil the Government norms, may not come in the line of any unexplained investment by the assessee and his brothers in purchase of property i....