TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 3,24,000/- on account of low drawings without any substantial evidence in hands. Assessee craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to add or amend the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing or before disposal of appeal." (B) Original return was filed on 01/08/2007 declaring income of Rs. 2,13,240/-. Proceedings U/s 147 read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("I.T. Act", for short) were initiated by the Assessing Officer ("AO", for short), by issue of notice dated 07/03/2013 U/s 148 of I.T. Act on the basis of one Ikrarnama (agreement) between two co-owners of the land (vendors) and one Mr. Bhupinder Singh; found during a search at the premises of a third party. In the aforesaid Ikrarnama (agreement) the agreed consideration for piece of land was shown at a figure higher than the consideration for which subsequently the piece of land was transferred to the assessee. Although, the aforesaid Ikrarnama (agreement to sell) was abandoned and did not result in transfer of land between the two co-owners and the aforesaid Mr. Bhupinder Singh; the AO took note of the aforesaid Ikrarnama (agreement to sell) while completing the assessment vide Assessment Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of 'Case Law Book': 1. Order of Hon'ble Supreme court in CIT Vs. P.V. Kalayansundraram (2007) 294 ITR 49/164 Taxman 78 confirming the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259/155. 2. Order in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010), 323 ITR 588 of Punjab and Haryana Court followed in Sunita Dhadda Vs. Dy. CIT, 2013(Jaipur-Tribunal) by ITAT Jaipur. 3. Order of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Dhadda, shri Padam Chand Dhadda And Smt. Vijay Laxmi Dhadda, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 197/2012, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 199/2012 and D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 198/2012, Dated:- 31 July 2017. 4. Order in the case of M/s Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus the Dcit Central Circle-1, Jaipur ITA No. 481/JP/2016 2018. 5. Order in the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Versus Dcit ITA No. 3178/AHD/2009; 2010 ITAT, Ahemdabad. 6. Order in the case of CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) 7. Order in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2017) 394 ITR 680 (Bombay HC) 8. Order in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (2017) 397 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f on-money is in consonance with circle rate or with valuation of the land by Stamp Duty Authority. The addition is also not based on valuation of land by any registered valuer. Moreover, the addition is also not based on any report of Valuation Officer. The lower authorities have also failed to bring any material on record to show that the addition is justified on the basis of fair market value of the land. In fact, from the perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO; we find no material to even indicate that the true value of land commanded a figure higher than what is reported by the assessee. There is also no material on record to show that any on-money payment might have been required to be paid by the assessee having regard to true market value of the land in the market or having regard to circle rate / valuation by Stamp Duty Authority / valuation by Registered Valuer / valuation by Valuation Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials on record, and in view of aforesaid discussion, we delete the aforesaid addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). (F) The Second Ground of appeal pertains to additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect payment to the seller of land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials on record, and the foregoing discussion, we delete the aforesaid addition of Rs. 4,08,000/-, which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). (G) The Third Ground of appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 3,24,000/- on account of low drawings for household expenses. This addition is based on estimated monthly household expenses of Rs. 30,000/- per month. On perusal of records, and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this estimate made by AO cannot be said to be excessive, unreasonable or high pitched. Therefore, this addition made by the AO, and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby confirmed. (H) In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of August, 2019. ============= Document 1 Groun Particulars d No. 1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the amount of addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- under section 69 of of Remarks Brief facts of the case: 1. the Act merely on 2. the basis suspicion. [Page....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not signed by all the owners of the property. g) Copy of Ikrarnama was never furnished to assessee during the assessment proceedings. No oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. A written agreement (Sale deed) must be accepted in its true form and cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. The Ld. CIT(A), however, has placed reliance on the statements given by the sellers and their children suggesting on money payment over and above the sum as per sale deed. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.V. Kalayansundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49/164 Taxman 78 confirming the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259/155 Taxman 454. [CL page 1-6] ii. Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010), 323 ITR 588 of Punjab and Haryana Court [CL page 7-9] iii. Sunita Dhadda Vs. Dy. CIT, 2013 33 taxman.com 639 (Jaipur- Tribunal) ICL page 10-22] iv. M/S. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deit Central Circle 1, JaipurITA No. 481/JP/2016 ITAT, Jaipur. [CL page 23-50] V. Sheth AkshayPushpa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sale of 104.5 bighas of land will reduce to Rs. Nil, resulting in proportionate on- money payment of Rs. Nil. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- as sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. Ld. CIT(A) has 1. The appellant with one Mr. Umesh Kochhar and another Mr. Malkait erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the amount of addition of Rs. 4,08,000/- under section 68 of the Act merely on Singh jointly in equal shares purchased land admeasuring 18 Bigha 6 Biswa, Village Tipra for consideration of Rs. 36.60,000/- vide sale deed dated 07.04.2006 registered at Kalka on which stamp duty of Rs. 2,19,600/ was paid. Appellant paid his share of consideration Rs. 12,93,200/- by taking loan from Mr. Rahul Kalsiwhois an income tax assessee who advanced the loan to the appellant through his bank account. the basis of 2. It is pertinent to mention that to prove the genuineness of the suspicion. [Page 5 Para 4 of AO's order transaction, a confirmation to this effect with the PAN and copy of return of Mr. Rahul Kalsi were furnished before the Ld.AO during the assessment proceedings and his ....