TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the proper prospective and consequently recorded a perverse finding? 2) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that site No. 687, Yelahanka Bangalore purchased at Rs. 4,82,000/- was not under value by ignoring and not considering the evidence in the proper prospective that the seller's husband Mr. Bassavaraj, had availed of a loan of Rs. 13.5 lakhs from the assessee and in order to discharge the same the site was sold by Smt. Vatsala, W/o Mr. Basavaraj to the assessee's wife Smt. Gayathri Devi, the agreement to sell seized in search showed that the actual sale consideration was Rs. 21 lakhs + registration and stamp duty charge of Rs. 97,155/- and as per the statements recorded and consequently recorded a perverse finding? 3) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that site No. 21, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore was not under valued by ignoring and not considering in the proper prospective, that Sri. Gurudeep Singh Bajaj and others had purchased this property from Sri. D.R. Subbaraju vide sale deed dated 03.06.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 9.45 lakhs and on 12.04.1999 assessee purchased it for Rs. 10 lakhs from Mr. Gurudeep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus he had understated to an extent of Rs. 9,20,000/-. The reason given by the assessee was that the said amount was received by the assessee between 11th December and the date of search i.e., on 21.12.2000, which has not been recorded in the relevant dairies. The said explanation was not accepted and the Assessing Authority held that the receivables of the assessee as on the date of the search is taken at Rs. 1,43,79,000/-. 4. In the appeal preferred by the assessee against the said finding, the first appellate authority was of the view that the Assessing Authority did not consider the reconciliation done by the assessee towards advances. Therefore, by letter dated 28/4/2004 the assessing authority was asked to decide on merits. The assessee had declared in the statement of affairs that total advances aggregate to Rs. 1,34,00,000/-, after giving due credits for the realization between 11.12.2000, upto to the date the dairy had been written and 21.12.2000, on which date the search took place, the figure of Rs. 1.46 crores does not represent the aggregate of advances made as per the dairy, but the figure noted is rough abstract made as per the dairy not accurately corresponding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- from Mrs. Vatsala, wife of Mr. Basavaraj. The unsigned agreement seized at the time of search revealed that this property was to be purchased for Rs. 21 Lakhs. The background behind this transaction was the fact that Mr. Basavaraj took loans from the assessee at various times, the interest accrued on these amounts, as well as principal amount were not paid on a regular basis. Consequently, a substantial amount was outstanding as payable to the assessee. In order to repay this liability, Mrs. Vatsala, w/o. Basavaraj sold the property to Smt. Gayathri Devi. Smt. Vatsala was examined on Oath on 21.12.2000 and her statement was recorded. She has stated that her husband had taken loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs from the assessee for business and the same had accrued to Rs. 13.5 Lakhs over a period of time. In order to repay the debt the house was sold and the site and building had been valued over Rs. 20 Lakhs. In answer to the said statement, the assessee gave his response. He has stated that he had advanced Rs. 14 lakhs to Mr. Basavaraj on various dates. He agreed to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs. 21 lakhs, which was registered for Rs. 4,50,000/-. However, the settlement was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration of Rs. 9.45 Lakhs. In other words, when he was selling the property four years thereafter, he could get only Rs. 55,000/- as additional amount. As per the Sub-Registrar's rate, the market value of the property was Rs. 14,10 Lakhs. If stamp duty and the registration charges are taken into consideration, the seller incurred a loss. When it was pointed out to the assessee, he stated that he had entered into an agreement with one Mr. Laxminarasaiah on 5.11.1997 to purchase the said property for a consideration of Rs. 18,76,500/- who acted as a broker for Sri. Gurudeep Singh and others. When the property rates fell all around Bangalore, he requested for payment of Rs. 8 Lakhs paid under the agreement. Then the said Laxmi Narasaiah requested him to directly get in touch with the owner. After speaking to the owner, the property was renegotiated for a consideration of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Therefore, it was contended that the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs is the only consideration which is paid. The assessing authority did not accept this explanation. However, the first appellate authority took note of the fact that the assessee with the permission of the department sold the said property o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....burden of proving the said loans is on the assessee he has failed to discharge the said burden. Therefore, he deleted Rs. 11 Lakhs from the liabilities. However, the first appellate authority was of the view that in the affidavit filed by the assessee, he had claimed liability of Rs. 35 Lakhs. Even before the said claim was made and even on the date of search, he was able to produce confirmation letters from lenders to the extent of Rs. 24 Lakhs. Merely because he was unable to give confirmation letters from the lendors he cannot be denied the benefits as his stand was consistent from starting to the end. In appeal, the Tribunal has upheld the said findings. In the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the assessee has claimed Rs. 35 lakhs as liability on the date of search, again before the authorities, he has claimed the said amount. He had filed affidavit to that effect and also produced letters of confirmation of the lenders. Merely because he could not get the confirmation letters and that letter of confirmation was produced before the first appellate authority, which is now accepted, we are of the view that the said finding recorded by the two appellate authorities do not....