Chetan A Sangale, Satara V. ITO (HQ) (CIB), Pune

ITA 315/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 31524514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 234B; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 315/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI CHETAN A. SANGALE, SANGALE SADAN, 403, GURWAR PETH, PARLANCE STREET, SATARA. PAN NO. BMPPS2047R .. APPELLANT VS. ITO (HQ)(CIB), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1674/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI ARVIND N. SANGALE, SANGALE SADAN, 403, GURWAR PETH, PARLANCE STREET, SATARA. PAN NO.BYUPS4768L .. APPELLANT VS. ITO (HQ)(CIB), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1675/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SMT. VASANTI ARVIND SANGALE, SANGALE SADAN, 403, GURWAR PETH, PARLANCE STREET, SATARA. PAN NO. BYGPS6420R .. APPELLANT VS. ITO (HQ)(CIB), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK & SHRI SUHAS P. BORA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 06-01-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-01-2015 2 ORDER PER BENCH : THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SINCE IDENTIC AL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. ITA NO.315/PN/2012 (SHRI CHETAN A. SANGALE) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDING AT SATARA. IN THIS CASE, INFOR MATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN ANNUAL INFORMATIO N RETURN FURNISHED U/S.285BA OF THE I.T. ACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS PURCHASED PROPERTY ON 09-12-2004 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.71 ,66,500/-. THE AO, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2005- 06. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME O N 05-11-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,090/-. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON BEING CONFRONTED BY THE AO, IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROPER TY WAS PURCHASED BY 5 PERSONS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE DEED DATED 08-12-2004 AND A RECTIFICATION DE ED DATED 04-01- 2005 IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY SMT. KUSUM NAHAR SANGLE TO HER TWO SONS NAM ELY SHRI SUBHASH N. SANGLE, SHRI ARVIND N. SANGLE, ONE GRAND SON NAMELY 3 CHETAN ARVIND SANGLE, (ASSESSEE), DAUGTHERS-IN-LAW, SMT. MADHURI SUBHASH SANGLE AND SMT. VASANTI ARVIND SANGLE. THE AO NOTED FROM CLAUSE 5 OF THE ORIGINAL DEED DATED 08-12-2004 THAT THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE DOCUMENT FOR TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ABOVE 5 PERSONS IS RS.25 LAKHS WHICH WAS TO BE PAID TO THE VENDOR IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : RS.3,00,000 ALREADY PAID IN CASH BY PARTY NO.1 (BUYER ) TO PARTLY NO.2 (SELLER) RS.7,00,000/- PAIN IN CASH BY PARTY NO.1 (BUYER) TO P ARTUY NO.2 (SELLER) ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF DEED (I.E. 08-1 2-2007). RS.5,00,000/- TO BE PAID WITHIN 15 DAYS BY PARTY NO.1 (BUYER) TO PARTY NO.2 (SELLER) FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF DE ED (IE. 08-12- 2007) RS.5,00,000 TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS BY PARTY NO.1 ( BUYER) TO PARTY NO.2(SELLER) FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF DEE D (IE. 08-12- 2007) RS.5,00,000/- TO BE PAID WITHIN 45 DAYS BY PARTY NO.1 (BUYER) TO PARTY NO.2 (SELLER) FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF DE ED (IE. 08-12- 2007) 2.2 HE NOTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, A RECTIFICATION DEE D WAS EXECUTED ON 04-01-2005 WHEREIN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RE VISED TO RS.71,67,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT SALE CONSIDERATIO N WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AT RS.25 LAKHS IN THE ORIGINAL DEED DATED 08-12-2004. AS PER CLAUSE 5 OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED, ONLY THE BA LANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS.46,67,000/- WAS MENTIONED TO BE PAID BY THE 5 BUYERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AFTER 10 YEARS FROM T HE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED AS THE TRANSACT ION IS BETWEEN THE MOTHER AND 2 SONS, GRAND SON AND 2 DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW . 4 2.3 FROM THE ABOVE CLAUSE OF THE ORIGINAL DEED AND RECTIFICATION DEED, THE AO INFERRED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKH S, WHICH WAS THE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE 5 BUYERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE AS ON T HE DATE OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED. SINCE THERE ARE 5 BUYERS, THE SHARE OF EACH BUYER COMES TO RS.5 LAKHS. THE AO, THEREFORE, HELD THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.5 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. 2.4 WHEN THE AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE S AME AND ASKED HIM TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT I N THE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF HIS SHARE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS PAID OUT OF THE FUNDS OF 2 BUYER S, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 14-11-2003 SUBASH N. SANGLE 300000 VEERSHAVI SAH. BANK, MARKET YARD BR. S.B.NO.134 06-12-2004 SUBASH N. SANGLE 250000 THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SATARA BRANCH A/C.NO.3240 06-12-2004 MADHURI S. SANGLE 250000 KARAD JANATA SAH. BANK LTD., SATARA BR. S.B. A/C.NO.3241 08-12-2004 MADHURI S. SANGLE 461000 VEERSHAVI SAH. BANK, MARKET YARD BR. OD A/C.NO.2 STAMP AND REGISTRATION EXPNS. 08-12-2004 SUBASH N. SANGLE 200000 THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SATARA BR. SB. A/C.NO.3240 2.5 THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE V ENDOR THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS OUT OF T HE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.71,67,000/- . IT WAS CLAIMED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT TO HIS GRANDMOTHER TILL DAT E. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND 5 THAT THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE CLAUSE IN THE ORIG INAL DEED AS WELL AS RECTIFICATION DEED WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT T HE AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS WAS ALREADY PAID BEFORE THE RECTIFICATI ON DEED. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS A SE LF-SERVING DOCUMENT AND AN AFTERTHOUGHT BY THE AO. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE ADD ITION OF RS.5 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. BEING HIS SHARE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. 3. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MADE ALMOST SIMILAR A RGUMENTS. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE ALSO CITED BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A). BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE HIM AND SUBMISSIONS M ADE THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. AFTER CONFRONTING THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE AND A FTER OBTAINING THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT, THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMAT ION THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CI T(A) AT PARA 9 OF HIS ORDER READS AS UNDER: 9. AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON 31 .8.2009 HE STATES THAT HE HAD NEVER PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKH S TILL THE DATE. ACCORDING TO THE RECTIFICATION DEED DT.4/1/2005, TH E AMOUNT OF RS,25,00,000/- STOOD PAID TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPER TY AS THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION, ACCORDING TO THE RECTIFICATION DEED, WAS RS.71,67,000/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE PAID AFT ER THE DATE OF RECTIFICATION DEED WAS RS.46,67,000/- ONLY. IN VIEW O F THE PAYMENT OF RS.25,00,000/- BEFORE THE RECTIFICATION DEED, I.E ., BEFORE 4/1/2005, AND IN VIEW OF PAYMENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS BY S HRI SUBHASH N. SANGLE (RS. 5,50,000/- IN TWO INSTALLMENTS I.E. ON 14.11.2003 AND 06.12.2004 )AND BY SMT. MADHURI S. SANGIE OF (RS. 4, 50,000/- IN TWO INSTALLMENTS VIZ. RS. 2,50,000/- ON 6.12.2004 AND RS.2,00,000/- ON 8.12.2004), IT IS APPARENT THAT RS. 15 LAKHS WAS PAID IN THE PERIOD STARTING FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTI ON OF DEED OF PURCHASE, I.E., ON 9.12.2004 AND ENDING AT DATE OF R ECTIFICATION DEED, I.E., 4/1/2005. ACCORDING TO THE PURCHASE DEED DT.9/12/2004, CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,00,000/- WAS TO B E PAID 6 WITHIN THE TIME SPAN OF 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF EXEC UTION OF THIS DEED, I.E., 9/12/2004. THE TWO PURCHASERS VIZ. SUBHAS NARHAR SANGLE AND SMT. MADHURI SUBHAS SANGLE ALREADY MADE P AYMENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS. AS SUCH, THE SHARE TO EACH OF FIVE PURCHASE RS CAME TO RS.5,00,000/- EACH WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE R EMAINING PURCHASERS. THE APPELLANTS SHARE WHICH HE MUST HAVE PA ID IS RS.5,00,000/-. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. U/SEC. 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 EVEN THOUGH INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 69 WERE NOT SATISFIED, SINCE THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAIN ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), FURTHER ERRED IN NOT A PPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION THAT WHEN AFFIANT SMT. SANGALE HA D FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE A.O. EXPLAINING THAT SHE HAS REC EIVED ONLY RS. 1000000/- AND NOT RS. 2500000/- AND IN VIEW OF THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, HER EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXA MINATION NEEDS TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACTUAL POSITION AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT TH AT FUNDS IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT WERE ROTATED BY WITHDRAW ING THE CASH FROM ONE ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN ANOTHER AC COUNT ON THE SAME DATE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS IN GROSS VIOLA TION OF THE LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE WAS ILLEG AL SINCE THERE IS NO PROPER SERVICE OF MANDATORY NOTICE U/SEC. 143(2) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AFTER FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING TH E APPEAL BY PASSING 'SPEAKING ORDER' AS MANDATED BY SEC. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. 6. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST U/SEC. 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND T HEREFORE IT BE DELETED. 7. THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO ADD TO OR ALTER ANY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. 7 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 TO 6 FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCO RDINGLY, THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE I S DISMISSED. 7. SO FAR AS THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED, T HEY ALL RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.5 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 69 ARE NOT SATI SFIED AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A ) IS UNCALLED FOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SELLER HAS FILED A N AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO EXPLAINING THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS.10 LAKHS AND NOT RS.25 LAKHS AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, U NDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED RS.25 LAKHS AND THE REBY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HIS SHARE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED BE FORE THE AO THAT THE SELLER HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS.10 LAKHS AND AN AFF IDAVIT TO THIS EXTENT WAS ALSO FILED. THEREFORE, WITHOUT PROVING THE SAME TO BE FALSE OR UNTRUE AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SELLER/VE NDOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE SELL ER HAS RECEIVED 8 RS.25 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE OF HER PROPERTY. HE ACCOR DINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THE A DDITION BE DELETED. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBM ITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL DEED AND THE RECTIFICATION DEED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.71,67,000 /- AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS STOOD PAID TO THE SELLER ON THE DATE OF RECTIFICATION DEED AND THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IS ONLY RS.46,67,000/-. THEREFORE, THE SELLER HAS ALREADY RECEIVED RS.25 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF HIS SHARE OF RS.5,00,000/ -, THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE A SSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE AMOUNT PAID TO T HE SELLER TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS HAS PAID AN AMO UNT OF RS.25 LAKHS TO THE SELLER OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.71,67,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES SHARE BEING RS.5 LAKHS WA S ADDED U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THE SELLER BY THE OTHER CO-OWNERS 9 OUT OF THE RS.25 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAI D ANYTHING TOWARDS HIS SHARE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION U/S.69 IS CALLED FOR. FURTHER, THE INGREDIENTS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 9 ARE ALSO NOT FULFILLED. 10.1 WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ENGLISH TRA NSLATION OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED IN PAPER BOOK WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 41 TO 43 AND WHICH READS AS UNDER : SHREE RECTIFICATION CORRECTION DEED RECTIFICATION CORRECTION DEED WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERAT ION DATED 4/1/2005, IN THE MUNICIPAL AREA OF SATARA MUNICIPAL ITY SATARA CITY SURVEY NO. 403 AND BUILDING HAVING TOTAL CONSTRUCTIO N OF GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. REGISTER SALE-DEED NO. 4626/2004 DATED 8/12/2004 1) SHREE. SUBHASH NARHAR SANGLE AGE : 44 YRS., OCCUPATION : BUSINESS CIVIL CONTRACTOR ADD. B2/10, TODKAR GARDEN, KONDHAWA, D.P. ROAD, BIBAWEWADI, PUNE 2) SHREE. ARVIND NARHAR SANGLE AGE : 47 YRS., OCCUPATION : NOTHING ADD. 403, GURUWAR PETH, SANGLE SADAN, SATARA 3) SHREE. CHETAN ARVIND SANGLE AGE : 19 YRS., OCCUPATION : EDUCATION ADD. 403, GURUWAR PETH, SANGLE SADAN, SATARA 4) SOU. MADHURI SUBHASH SANGLE AGE : 40 YRS., OCCUPATION : BUSINESS CIVIL CONTRACTOR ADD. B2/10, TODKAR GARDEN, KONDHAWA, D.P. ROAD, BIBAWEWADI, PUNE 5) SOU. VASANTI ARVIND SANGLE AGE : 40 YRS., OCCUPATION : HOUSEHOLD, ADD. 403, GURUWAR PETH, SANGLE SADAN, SATARA - PURCHASER AND SMT. KUSUM NARHAR SANGLE AGE : 72 YRS., OCCUPATION : HOUSEHOLD, ADD. 403, GURUWAR PETH, SANGLE SADAN, SATARA - VENDOR 10 RECTIFICATION CORRECTION DEED WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERAT ION AS FOLLOWS. WE HAVE MADE A REGISTERED SALE-DEED ON 8/12/2004 AND THE SAID REGISTER DEED IS REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF JOINT SUB -REGISTRAR SATARA NO. 1 BY REGISTER DOCUMENT NO. 4626/2004 DT. 8/12/20 04. BUT IN THE SAID DEED THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN AMOUNT OF CONSIDER ATION AND SOME MATTER WAS NOT RECORDED. SO WE HAVE MADE THIS REC TIFICATION CORRECTION DEED. A) INCORRECT DESCRIPTION : 1) INSTEAD OF PAGE NO. 1 SECOND ROW 'ACTUAL VAL UE RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKH ONLY' AND 2) INSTEAD OF PAGE NO. 3 PARA NO.4 ROW NO.4 'R UPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKH ONLY' AND 3) INSTEAD OF PAGE NO.4 PARA NO. 10 ROW NO.2 ' ACTUAL VALUE RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKH ONLY'. CORRECT DESCRIPTION : 1) PAGE NO. 1 SECOND ROW 'ACTUAL VALUE RUPEES S EVENTY ONE LAKH SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONLY' AND 2) PAGE NO. 3 PARA NO.4 ROW NO.4 'RUPEES SEVEN TY ONE LAKH SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONLY' AND 3) PAGE NO.4 PARA NO. 10 ROW NO.2 'ACTUAL VAL UE RUPEES SEVENTY ONE LAKH SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONLY' B) ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION : IN PARA NO. (5) FOLLOWING MATTER IS TO BE ADDED 'REM AINING AMOUNT OF RUPEES FORTY SIX LAKH SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONLY WI LL BE PAID BY THE PURCHASERS TO THE VENDOR AFTER TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SALE-DEED. SELLER AND PURCHASERS ARE HAVING RELATION A S MOTHER AND SON, DAUGHTER IN LAW AND GRANDSON. THE PURCHASERS ARE N OT ABLE TO PAY SUCH HUGE AMOUNT IMMEDIATELY. THEREFORE, VENDOR AGREE TO GIVE CONCESSION UPON THE REQUEST OF PURCHASERS.' AS ABOVE WE ARE MADE CORRECTION IN PURCHASE AMOUNT AN D WE ARE MADE EXPLANATION REGARDING THAT THE REST OF THE SALE- DEED REMAINS AS IT IS. WE MADE THE SAID RECTIFICATION DEED WITHOUT ANY CONSI DERATION IT WILL BE BINDING ON OUR LEGAL HEIRS. THE ABOVESAID RECTIFICATION DEED WE MADE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION TYPED AS PER OUR INSTRUCTIONS, WE READ IT , GET UNDERSTAND AND CONFIRMED THAT IT IS CORRECT. WE WERE AGREED AND ACCEPTED AND SIGNED BEFORE THE WITNESSES AND THE WITNESS ES HAD SIGNED IN-FRONT OF US. THIS CORRECTION SALE-DEED WE MAD E WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. PURCHASERS SIGN 1. SHREE. SUBHASH NARHAR SANGLE 2. SHREE. ARVIND NARHAR SANGLE 3. SHREE. CHETAN ARVIND SANGLE 4. SOU. MADHURI SUBHASH SANGLE 5. SOU. VASANTI ARVIND SANGLE SELLER SMT. KUSUM NARHAR SANGLE 11 WITNESSES 1. SHRI. SANJAY GANPATRAO PANSARE 2. SHRI. RAMESH VITTHALRAO BHOSLAKAR 3. SHRI. SUNIL NARHAR SANGLE 10.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT OUT OF THE TO TAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.71,67,000/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS HAS ALR EADY BEEN PAID BECAUSE AS PER PARA 5 ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.46,67,00 0/- IS OUTSTANDING AS ON 04-01-2005. THIS OTHERWISE INDIC ATES THAT AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID. THE A FFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION IS ONLY A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT BEING BETWEEN INTERESTED PARTIES AND CANNOT BE RELIED UP ON IN VIEW OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED THAT TOO IN PRESENCE OF 3 WITNES SES. 10.3 SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 69 ARE NOT FULFILLED, W E FIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 READ AS UNDER : WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER, SATISFACT ORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. 10.4 SINCE ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE WHO DOES NOT MAINTAI N ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.5 LAKHS BEING HIS SHARE IN THE LAND, THE SOURCE OF WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THEREF ORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF TH E DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER SUSTAINING THE ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. ACCORDINGLY, 12 THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1674/PN/2011 ( SHRI ARVIND N. SANGALE) : ITA NO.1675/PN/2011 (SHRI VASANTI ARVIND SANGALE: 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS. SINCE FACTS OF THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.315/PN/2012, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAM E REASONINGS, THE ABOVE APPEALS RAISED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 3 APPEALS FILED BY THE R ESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-01-2015. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. P ANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 12 TH JANUARY, 2015 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. THE CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE