2006 (2) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her sale consideration actually received, the Revenue is justified in fixing the sale consideration at the higher amount than what has been declared? (B) When the assessee did not give any explanation to the notings found and at the same time the Revenue is able to corroborate the same with the statement of the seller for the purpose of determination of actual sale value, would the lower authority be justified in interfering with the same? (C) When consistent sworn statements were taken into consideration along with evidences found at the time of search, would they all be liable to be rejected on the basis of one statement in between contradicting the earlier ones which was also explained away as a result of intimidation?" The fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s only Rs. 4.10 lakhs and the earlier statements given before the income-tax authorities were not true. On August 10, 2000, the seller, Sri Rajarathinam, submitted a letter before the Assessing Officer withdrawing the affidavit given on January 8, 1999. In the subsequent sworn statement recorded before the Assessing Officer on November 20, 2000, Sri Rajarathinam had mentioned that the sale consideration which was received by him from the purchase consideration was actually Rs. 34.85 lakhs, as against Rs. 4.10 lakhs stated in the registered deed for purchase of land. In the cash flow statement for the assessment year 1999-2000, i.e., block period April 1, 1988 to December 8, 1998, the Assessing Officer adopted the sum in the cash flow relati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....easons this was not done. Had the cash been seized from the seller, the matter would have been concluded in favour of the Revenue. In a subsequent submission, the seller claimed on November 20, 2000 that he had paid Rs. 15 lakhs out of the sale proceeds to settle old family debts, Rs. 4.80 lakhs for construction of house in Pullkasi Village and the balance was advanced to parties for keeping Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs in the house for family expenses and educational expenses of his daughter, respectively. It was also noted that the revised return was filed by the seller wherein he had shown approximately Rs. 2.5 lakhs being available with him in cash. Even after giving the retraction and admitting that he had sold the property for a sale c....