TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order 388/D/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070711671(1) Dated 28.11.2024 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 389/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070712060(1) 28.11.2024 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 390/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1070711845(1) 28.11.2024 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 391/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-25, Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/PNL/F/271D/2023- 24/1055624015(1) 29.08.2023 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 1783/Del/23 2019-20 CIT(A)-23, New Delhi Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi- 23/10556/2018-19 Dated 11.04.2023 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 1784/Del/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-23, New Delhi Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi- 23/10557/2018-19 Dated 11.04.2023 ACIT, CC-3 Dated 31.12.2022 2. That the assessee had purchased a property shop No. 7GH-05B, Cherry Archade Techzone-IV, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. jointly being spouse for Rs. 79,78,030/-. A search was conducted on 17.08.2020 of Shri Pranjil Batra to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is that the cost of purchase is not disputed by the department and that there cannot be such a huge increase in the price of the property in such a short time. 7. I have considered facts of the case as well as grounds of appeal field by the appellant. It is observed that appellant claiming that the agreement to sell dated 17.07.2018 is of no evidentiary value as it has not been signed by the parties nor witnessed. It is observed that in the agreement to sell dated 17.07.2018 first party is mentioned as "AMIT JAIN AND NIDHI JAIN" and second party is mentioned as "POONAM BATRA AND PRANJIL BATRA" on an e-stamp valued of Rs. 50 with description "Article 23 - A Sale Agreement". Further, the same is signed by Sh. Amit Jain (seller). Sale consideration, mode of payment and transaction details clearly mentioned in this agreement. Relevant part of the agreement dated 17.07.2018 are reproduced as under :- "NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSESESTH AS UNDER :- 1. That out of the entire sale consideration amount, the first party has received a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- RUPEES ONE CRORE TWENTY LAC ONLY) details as :- (i) Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque vide no 000005 drawn on Kotak ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal sale deed dated 25.09.2019. 10. It is also evident that two separate cheques dated 05.07.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi were already issued before the date of sale agreement i.e. 17.07.2018. In agreement, it is also mentioned that amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- will be paid on 25.08.2018 as per instruction of first party. 11. Only difference in both documents apart from cash transaction of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- is that in agreement to sell cheque transactions mentioned are amounting to Rs. 77,00,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- plus Rs. 3,00,000/- plus Rs. 72,00,000/-) whereas in sale deed it is mentioned as Rs. 75,00,000/-, which is also the sole reason for the addition of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- (combined) instead of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- as mentioned in agreement. 12. Shri Pranjil Batra and Ms. Poonam Batra are purchaser and Amit Jain and Nidhi Jain are seller of the impugned property. The agreement is signed by both the appellant and her husband Shri Amit Jain. It is clearly mentioned in agreement that the first party have already received Rs. 1,20,00,000/- including cash of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. The agreement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see couple and further the agreement mentions of receipt of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- in cash an advance. Thus, the cheque mentioned of 05.07.2018 & 01.07.2018 are of date prior to this alleged agreement dated 17.07.2018. 6.2 Then agreement mentions that the deal has been finalised by Hari Om Properties and both the parties have to pay 1% commission to him. However, the said Hari Om Properties is not party to this agreement though as it appears to be a beneficiary it should have been tri-party agreement. 6.3 The ld. tax authorities below have relied the sale deed wherein there is mention of two cheques both dated 05.07.2018 whereas one of the cheques No. 419828 of Rs. 3,00,000/- as mentioned in the agreement is of 01.07.2018. 6.4 It further comes up from the appreciation of this transfer deed of a leasehold rights that it was executed on 26.09.2018 and it mentions that the transferor has obtained permission to transfer the said party in favour of the transferee from the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vide their transfer Memorandum No. Commercial Report/BRS/EGM/2018/994, dated 25.09.2018. Meaning thereby that on the date of alleged agreement, when alleged 'on mo....