TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., particularly when the details extent of land sold and cheque component of consideration are matching with those of the sale deed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that cash of Rs.3,15,38,320/- was actually received by the assessee from the sale of immovable property as evidenced by the notings available in the seized material." 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, deriving salary income from M/s. Yashoda Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., and filed the original return of income for the AY 2019-20 on 25-09-2019, admitting income of Rs. 64,90,640/-. The case was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. A search and seizure operation u/s.132 was conducted in the case of Yashoda Group on 22-12-2020. Thereafter, a warrant was issued in the case of the assessee and search was conducted u/s.132 of the Act and during the course of search some documents / loose sheets were found and seized. Subsequently, Notice u/s.153A was issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. In response to the notice u/s.153A, the assessee filed his return of income on 26-11-2021 declaring total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence not reproduced here again. Section 292C of the Income Tax Act casts a presumption that the contents of the books of account or other documents found during search are true and belong to such person. Hence prima facie, there is a presumption that the contents of page no.24 seized during search are true and belong to the appellant. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. The appellant has denied the contents under oath in a statement u/s. 132(4) recorded during search. He claimed that he has not received any on-money over and above the cheque payments. The AO has examined the buyers viz, Shri Amand Krishnakanth and Shri Produturi Puma Chandrasekhar Reddy under oath u/s.131 of the Act and both have denied any payment of cash over and above the cheque payments mentioned in the sale deed. In other words, both the seller and the buyers have rebutted the presumption enshrined in Section 292C of the Act. There is no other corroborative evidence brought on record by the AO to substantiate that cash over and above the cheque payments have been received by the appellant. Besides, as contended by the AR, the loose paper does not mention the nature of payment, date of transaction, parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital gains on the total sale consideration of Rs.3,63,30,320/- as against the cheque amount of Rs. 47,92,000/-. What is your explanation. Ans. I don't know and I don't remember anything about the contents of the page no.24 of the Anx A/LA/RES/01. Q.33 As per the details mentioned in the page--no.24 of. Anx A/LA/RES/01 i.e., the extent of land and the cheque amount of is.47,92,000/- are exactly matching with the extent and sale consideration declared by you in your return of income are exactly matching. In these circumstances, bow can you say that you have not received the cash as mentioned in the page no24 of Anx A/LA/RES/01. Ans. I don't remember and I cannot say anything. Q.34 Phase produce the sale deed for the sale of plot measuring about 698.66 sq. yrds' situated at Nizamabad? Ans. Presently, I am not having the sale deed and I will produce the sale deed copy 'within 4 days. Q.35 As per ec.132(4A) of the Income Tax Ac; 1961 where any books of accounts or other documents are found in the procession or control of any person, it may be presumed that, such books of accounts or other documents belong to such person and the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout the slip i.e page, no. 24 just had avoided the asked question saying I have no comment on it. From the above fact and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble bench may kindly consider the contents of seized page no.24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 as a speaking document, particularly when the detailed . extent of land sold and cheque component of consideration are matching with those of the sale deed. 8. Per contra, ld. AR had submitted that page 24 of the paper book which had been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the order was a dumb document. 9. Ld. AR further submitted that the whole basis of Page 24 out of documents seized vide Annexure A/LA/RES/01 is incorrect as in the said document, the amount of the total consideration was mentioned as Rs.3,63,30,320/-. The ld. AR had submitted that two sale deeds were executed on the same day in favour of two persons i.e., on 26.09.2018. It was also submitted that out of the total consideration, the amount to be paid was mentioned as Rs. 92,88,820/-. The ld. AR had made two-fold statements namely, that the assessee is a seller and as per the sale deed, the assessee has to receive the consideration and was not to pay the considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and he relied upon section 132(4a) and section 292C of the Act. Besides the above, he also relied upon section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was further submitted that page 24 (one of the impounded documents during search i.e., Annexure-A/LA/RES/01) was not a dumb document as the figure of cheque amount mentioned in the said document matches with the figure mentioned in the sale deed dt.26.09.2018. It was also the contention of the assessee that the assessee has not denied the transaction mentioned in Page 24 reproduced hereinabove and therefore, the adverse inference is required to be drawn against the assessee as the assessee owns the said document. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The basis of deleting the addition by the ld. CIT(A), mentioned in para 5.5 of his order, was reproduced at Para 5 of this order. The whole order of the ld. CIT(A) revolves around, the fact that the assessee had denied the contents of alleged page 24 in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, the finding of ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the record which is clear from the reading of the statement reproduced hereinabove, more particularly, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it appears that the amount of Rs. 92,88,320/- was yet to be paid to the assessee but no evidence has been brought on record to say in which year the said amount was received by the assessee i.e., whether immediately after the registration of sale deed or in subsequent financial year or thereafter. Therefore, to that extent, we are in agreement with the argument of the ld. AR. Furthermore, Assessing Officer had failed to establish that the amount of Rs.92,88,320/- was paid on or after the date of registration of property, at page 24 as it was mentioned as "to be paid". In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the Revenue has not been able to prove that the amount of Rs. 92,88,320/- was paid during the year under consideration i.e., at the time of registration of sale deed relevant to A.Y. for the year under consideration. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 92,88,320/- is required to be deleted. 14. The balance amount after deleting the amount of Rs. 92,88,320/- which remained, added by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 2,22,50,000/-. In this regard, the ld. DR had pointed out that the said amount forming part of the document was recovered from the residential premises of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer has not brought any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting on the said page 24 as that of the assessee and was made with a view to recording the alleged sale transaction. 16. In the present case, ld. CIT(A) after examining the documents and the decisions placed before him had deleted the addition. In our view, no fault can be found on the basis of the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A). The contention of the ld. DR that as per the provision of section 132(4) of the Act and section 292C of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to rebut the contents of the document found during the course of search / seizure. The perusal of section 292C makes it abundantly clear that the presumption as to the contents of the document found in the possession of the assessee during the course of search is a rebuttable presumption and the assessee can very well rebut the transaction by bringing contrary evidence on record. Lastly, Page 24 is a dumb document as the necessary details are not provided and the assessee has denied the contents of the said document by bringing on record (1) registered sale deeds which clearly belies the payment of 'on money' on the sale transaction. (....