Case Law Details
Surinder Kaur Sethi Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee has tried to support the claim towards cost of improvement of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- purportedly incurred in F.Y. 1982 and 1983 respectively by way of affidavit. On inquiry, from the bench, it was however admitted that other than affidavit, the assessee does not possess any other direct or indirect supporting evidence. The only case of the assessee is that the cost of improvement has taken place 35 years back and that too incurred by his brother, and therefore, the assessee is not in a position to corroborate the claim. The assessee mainly relies upon the doctrine of preponderance.
On perusal of the affidavit, it is not known as to what kind of improvement has been carried out by the brother of the assessee. No particulars whatsoever is available on record in this regard. While it is the claim of the assessee that the improvement has taken place immediately after the cut of date for adoption of fair market value of cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, it is equally plausible that such cost, if any, has been incurred prior to the cut of date and thus already taken into account for the purposes of fair market value of cost of acquisition of the property in question.
The affidavit is vague and non-descript. It is not clear from affidavit as to what is the basis for affirming the contents on oath. Needless to say, an affidavit should clearly spell out how much is the statement to the deponents knowledge and how much is a statement of his belief based on information and source thereof. The grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the court/administrating authority to judge whether it would be safe to act on deponents ‘belief’.
In the instant case, the affidavit filed by the assessee bears only the verification that it has been sworn on oath and contents of the affidavit is correct but without giving source of knowledge or information. Such bald verification makes the impugned affidavit meaningless and valueless. The nature and source of knowledge is not found to be disclosed with sufficient particularity rendering it a piece of paper carrying no probative value and thus liable to be rejected. The affidavit filed by the assessee appears to be only a self serving document and no weight can be attached to such standalone paper in the absence of any other material or corroboration about the improvements carried out to support assertions made in this regard. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to produce evidence which is rightly considered unsatisfactory and devoid of any factual basis by the lower authorities.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
