TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 preferred against the respondent/assessee for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee by stating that the seller has retracted his statement based on which the assessing officer had made the addition in view of the fact that the assessee cannot be allowed to retract from an earlier admission by mere statement ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee by stating that the assessee was not provided opportunity to cross examine the seller in view of the fact that the ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 46,32,500 for the assessment year 2002-03 under Section 69B of the Act by treating the same as investment from undisclosed sources. 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of assessment, the assessee filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala which were allowed by the appellate authority on 3-2-2005 while making the following observations: "...The learned assessing officer has heavily relied upon the statement recorded by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investment), Ludhiana on 18-9-2001 in which the seller has deposed that apart from the registration deed he had received Rs. 72,00,000 from the appellant in five instalments. This statement has been perused by me and it is found that the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learly in the instant case, the Departmental stand has not been substantiated with proper evidence. Rather, in the case of the seller Shri Satinder Pal Singh who is being assessed with Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ill, Khanna, the learned assessing officer while completing his assessment after detailed scrutiny has categorically accepted that he had sold the land to the appellant in the capacity of agent of NRIs for a sum of Rs. 38,35,000 only in this year. 6.1 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned assessing officer was not justified in adding the sum of Rs. 38,65,000 in the hands of the appellant treating the same as investment from undisclosed sources. Hence the same is deleted." 5. The D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the information received from the Investigating Wing in para 1 itself, therefore, it is not a case where the said assessing authority was unaware of the information gathered by the investigating Wing of the Department. In spite of the same, the assessing authority has independently verified the position and has not inferred that no consideration over and above the stated consideration has changed hands. Thirdly, we also notice that the present assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings, specifically contested the alleged admission by Shri Satinder Pal Singh and requested that the assessee be allowed to cross examine the said person. There is nothing on record to indicate the reasons as to why the assessing authority failed to allow c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer has not even made any attempt to inquire the sources from where the assessee could have met the requirements of payment of on-money. Therefore, the presumption that whatever is stated on the registered deed is correct unless the contrary is proved by credible evidence, clearly applies in the instant case." 6. Against the said order, the aforesaid two appeals have been filed. 7. After hearing the counsel for the Appellant and going through the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has recorded a pure finding of fact after taking into consideration the evidence/material available on the record to the effect that before the assessing officer there was no material or evidence to conclude t....