TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153 C for the A.Y. 2008-2009. A search was conducted in the business premises of M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot on 23.10.2008. During the course of search in their business premises no books of accounts or documents belonging to the Appellant was found or seized. Only two loose sheets (no sign) namely, SJ-1 and SJ-III were found. These do not belong to the Appellant. The Assessing Officer in his Order stated that SJ-III is a sale agreement for the sale of property entered into by the Appellant and M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot and the same has been signed by both the parties. But copy of seized material viz. SJ-III given to the Appellant by the A.O. is only a copy of note book of the St.Antony's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Brief facts of the case are as follow:- 3.1 The assessee is a company. It had sold 30.50 cents of land at Chembukavu in Thrissur town to M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot, vide document No.3424/07 dated 24.04.2007. The value disclosed in the sale deed was Rs. 18,30,000. There was a search and seizure in the residential premises of Shri Babu John, the Managing Partner of the firm M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act. In the course of search, certain documents and materials were seized. According to the Assessing Officer, the seized documents (SJ-I and SJ-III) point out that the property sold by the assessee to M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot was for a total consideration of Rs. 99,90,000 instead of Rs. 18.30 lakh disclosed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntered into by the assessee and M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot and the same is signed by both the parties is incorrect. It was submitted that the seized material, viz., SJ-III is only a copy of the note book of M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot wherein certain property transaction are recorded and is without any signature. It was stated that these noting are not with reference to the property sold by the assessee. The CIT(A) however rejected the contentions raised before him and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the long term capital gains computed by the Assessing Officer and the sale consideration was taken at Rs. 99.90 lakh instead of 18.30 lakh disclosed in the sale document. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the documented value of Rs. 18.30 lakh. It was argued that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, from Shri Babu John also does not state that an amount of Rs. 99.90 lakh has been paid to the assessee for the sale of impugned property. It was contended that the burden of proving actual consideration was higher than document value is on the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not been able to produce any corroborative evidence to prove the contrary. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessment order based on presumption and conjecture is to be quashed. 5.1 The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the Income-tax Authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement recorded there is no mention about the details of property, namely survey number, nature of property and from whom the property has been purchased. The copy of the English translation of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) from Shri Babu John, who is the Managing Partner of M/s.St.Antony's Timber Depot, is placed on record. The question posed concerning SJ-I is question No.11 and question posed pertaining SJ-III is question No.15 and 17. In answer to question No.15 and 17, there is no mention of assessee's name anywhere. Even the extent of the land does not tally with the description in the sale deed. The burden of proving the actual consideration is not the documented value, but it is something above the documented value is on the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) the burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction is that of revenue. Considering the entire gamut of the case, we find that revenue has failed to discharge its duties and as held by the ld.CIT(A) instead made up a case on surmises and conjectures which cannot be allowed. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and we uphold the appellate order in this regard'. We also found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to the value of the property purchased. He merely relied on the statement given by the seller. If he would have taken independent enquiry by referring the matter with the Valuation Offic....