Case Law Details
The ld. D/R could not point out any binding precedent wherein it has been held that the oral statement would over ride the documentary evidence. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal (supra), we are of the view that the AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law.
It is also not placed on record whether the sale deed was executed under coercion. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition.
Relevant Extract of the Judgment
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search operation was carried out on the assessee on 03.05.2007. The assessee was searched under section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 19/11/2007 requiring him to furnish return of income within 35 days. The requisite return was filed. The assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153 of the Act was framed thereby the AO made addition of Rs. 42,27,000/- as undisclosed investment. The addition was made on the basis that one of the sellers Shri Hanuman Yadav who appeared before the AO and submitted that the sale consideration of the land was Rs. 35,00,000/- as against Rs. 4,48,670/- declared by the assessee. Further the AO also observed that the assessee had purchased 10 bighas land from Shri Madan Singh in Phagi for Rs. 4,15,000/- as per the sale deed. However, in the statement recorded on 23.05.2007, Shri Madan Singh stated that he had sold the said property @ Rs. 1,55,000/- per bigha which would take the total figure at Rs. 15,50,000/-. However, the AO observed in the assessment order that Shri Nathawat stated that the statements were not read back to him nor was a copy given to him and that he had not said anything more than the price indicated in the sale deed. Thus two additions were made i.e. Rs. 30,92,000/- and Rs. 11,35,000/- totaling Rs. 42,27,000/- on account of difference between the sale consideration declared in the sale deed and in the statement given by Shri Hanuman Yadav. The assessee by this, preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee and the material placed on record, sustained the addition of Rs. 30,92,000/- in respect of the transaction entered with Shri Hanuman Yadav and deleted the addition in respect of the transaction with Shri Madan Singh.
4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before the
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
