Case Law Details
Kapil N. Shah Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT hels that impugned ‘agreement to sell’ projected by the assessee to justify his claim that the amount of Rs. 17,50,000 (supra) was received by him from the company in lieu of a transaction of an anticipated sale of land by him to the company, which however could not fructify on account of compulsory acquisition of the land by the government is merely an arrangement tailored by the assessee with the sole intent to wriggle out of the ramifications of having received the aforesaid amount from the company, which as per law was liable to be assessed as ‘deemed dividend’ under section 2(22)(e) in his hands.
We find ourselves to be in absolute agreement with the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the claim raised by the assessee and the contentions raised in context thereto have serious loose ends which clearly militate against the basic principle of preponderance of human probabilities, and rather, as a matter of fact goes to prove to the hilt that the said claim of the assessee is the brain child of an afterthought, which was guided by an ulterior motive of avoiding assessing of the aforesaid amount as a ‘deemed dividend’ in the hands of the assessee.
We though are of the considered view that the very fact that the ‘agreement to sell’, dated 29-6-2002 which in itself being unregistered would have no existence in the eyes of law, coupled with the fact that the same was found to have been executed on a ‘Stamp paper’ of the value of Rs. 50 which was found to be issued on 11-1-2000, i.e. more than 2 years prior to the date of the impugned ‘agreement of sell, viz. 29-6-2002, between the assessee and the company, and was not found to have been issued in the name of either of the aforesaid parties, viz, the assessee or the company/or director/secretary of the company, but in the name of a third party who was a stranger to the impugned transaction, would in itself had sufficed establishing of the falsity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, but we have further proceeded with the various facets relatable to the issue under consideration, with the purpose to unfold the sequence of false claims which had been raised by the assessee before the lower authorities.
We find ourselves to be in agreement with the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), and are of the considered view that neither the contentions raised by the assessee before the lower authorities nor the ‘material’ available on record, supports the claim of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 17,50,000 (supra) was received by him as an advance for an anticipated sale of land by him to the company. We thus in light of our aforesaid observations uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
