Chandrakant Chhaganbhai Gondalia Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat)
ITAT Surat held that addition based on unsigned, undated and unstamped Satakhat/ sale and purchase agreement cannot be sustained since such document has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69B deleted.
Facts- The case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information that a survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the office premises of Turnish B Kania, Advocate. One of the Satakhat, it was found that the assessee and Shri Rameshchandra Harjibhai Gondaliya jointly purchased a property from Babyben Budhiyabhai Patel and others out of R.S. No 79/2, Block NO. 223 of village Sarsana, Surat. On the impounded document, sale price of land was shown at Rs. 3.59 crores. However, as per record available, the transaction of land was registered wherein the value of sale consideration by way of cheque is shown at Rs. 1.20 crore. Thus, the Assessing Officer was of the view, the assessee has paid Rs. 2.39 crores in cash. The cash shown on Satakhat was not mentioned on the registered sale deed.
AO treated the difference of Rs. 2.39 crores (Rs. 3.59 – Rs. 1.20 crore) as not recorded in the books of account. The assessee is having 50% share in the land, therefore, half of the impugned investment i.e. Rs. 1.19 crore was treated as undisclosed income and added u/s. 69B of the Act.
