Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76935 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-04-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
22-04-2014
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
05-06-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.341(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :ACGPS0467B CH. NAGAR SINGH VS. DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, 33 A/D GANDHI NAGAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU. JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.375ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :ACGPS0467B ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. CH. NAGAR SINGH CENTRAL CIRCLE, 33 A/D GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU. JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.342(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AADPS0083P CH. JAGAR SINGH VS. DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, 25 C/C GANDHI NAGAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU. JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.376(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AADPS0083P 2 DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, VS. CH. JAGAR SINGH CENTRAL CIRCLE, 25 C/C GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU. JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEES BY:SH.JOGINDER SINGH, CA DEPARTMENT BY: SH.TARSEM LAL,DR DATE OF HEARING: 22/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28/04/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE CROSS APPEALS OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AN D THE REVENUE ARISE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA , EACH DATED 14.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 341(ASR)/2013 IN THE CAS E OF CH. NAGAR SINGH HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,00,000/- B EING 40% SHARE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.60, 0,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND , MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EAC H OTHER. 3 3. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.375(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A. Y. 2007-08 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.66,91,200/- TO RS.24,00,000/- BE ING 40% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING THE UNDISCLOSED PAY MENT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AT RS.60,00,000/- INSTE AD OF RS.1,67,28,000/-. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN ACCEPTING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A LESSER AMOUNT W AS PAID AS CONSIDERATION OF LAND BECAUSE THE AREA OF LAND TURN ED OUT TO BE LESS THAN 37 KANALS THEREBY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANY MEASURE MENT OF AREA OF LAND WAS GO DONE BEFORE THE REGISTRATION OF LAND . 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE DEAL FOR PURCHASE O F LAND WAS EXECUTED PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION WHEREIN THE ENTIRE SALE CON SIDERATION WAS SHOWN AT RS.5.40 CRORES FOR 37 KANALS OF LAND. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE REGISTRATION OF LAN D HAS BEEN DONE IN RESPECT OF 36.14 KANALS OF LAND MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT THE NISHANDEHI AND MEASUREMENT OF LAND DONE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BEFORE OR AT THE TI ME OF REGISTRATION. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RNEGOTIATION OF DEAL CANNOT BE TRUE. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S BY IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MEASUREMENT OF LAND BEFORE THE REGISTRATION THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID WHICH HAD BEEN AGREED UPON AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL. 4 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 7. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED ON MERITS. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 342(ASR)/2013 IN THE CA SE OF CH. JAGAR SINGH HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,00,000/- B EING 40% SHARE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.60, 0,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND , MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EAC H OTHER. 5.. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.376(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A .Y. 2007-08 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.66,91,200/- TO RS.24,00,000/- BE ING 40% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING THE UNDISCLOSED PAY MENT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AT RS.60,00,000/- INSTE AD OF RS.1,67,28,000/-. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN ACCEPTING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A LESSER AMOUNT W AS PAID AS CONSIDERATION OF LAND BECAUSE THE AREA OF LAND TURN ED OUT TO BE LESS THAN 37 KANALS THEREBY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANY MEASURE MENT OF AREA OF LAND WAS GO DONE BEFORE THE REGISTRATION OF LAND . 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE DEAL FOR PURCHASE O F LAND WAS 5 EXECUTED PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION WHEREIN THE ENTIRE SALE CON SIDERATION WAS SHOWN AT RS.5.40 CRORES FOR 37 KANALS OF LAND. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE REGISTRATION OF LAN D HAS BEEN DONE IN RESPECT OF 36.14 KANALS OF LAND MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT THE NISHANDEHI AND MEASUREMENT OF LAND DONE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BEFORE OR AT THE TI ME OF REGISTRATION. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RNEGOTIATION OF DEAL CANNOT BE TRUE. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S BY IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MEASUREMENT OF LAND BEFORE THE REGISTRATION THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID WHICH HAD BEEN AGREED UPON AS PER AGREEMENT TO SELL. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 7. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED ON MERITS. 6. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.341(ASR)/2013 AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA N O.375(ASR)/2013 IN THE CASE OF SH. NAGAR SINGH. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOL VED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES AND FACTS INVOLVED THE CASE OF SH. JAGAR SINGH IN ITA NO. 342(ASR)/2013 AND IN REVENUES APPEAL IN I TA NO.376(ASR)/2013 AND OUR DECISION HEREINABOVE IN THE CASE OF CH. NAG AR SINGH SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SH. JAGAR SIN GH. 6 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE, NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS AS PER ANNEXURE A-4 HAD BEEN SEIZED FROM M/S. KISAN FLOUR MILLS IN WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAPPENS TO BE A PARTNER. PAGE NO. 1 TO 11 CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF T RANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OF LAND MEASURING 37 KANALS. THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SE WAS EVIDENCED BY AN AGREEMENT TO SELL AS PER WHICH THE TOTAL TRANSACTIO N CONSIDERATION WAS PEGGED AT RS.5,40,00,000/- FOR 37 KANALS WITH A QUALIFYING CONDITION THAT THE CONSIDERATION WOULD GET ADJUSTED DEPENDING UPON THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENT OF LAND AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. THE AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: THIS AGREEMENT TO SELL IS MADE BETWEEN SH. PYARE LA L SARAF AND CH. NAGAR SINGH R/O 33 A/D GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMY WHEREBY PARTY OF IST PART SH. P.L. SARAF HAS AGREED TO SELL 37 KANAL AND SITUATED AT NARWAL BYE PASS ROAD, JAMMU FOR RS.5.40 CRORES ONLY. AN A MOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES HAS BEEN PAID AS ADVANCE AGAINST THE ABOVE S AID AMOUNT OF RS.5.40 CRORE. BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED FOR BALANCE PAYMENTS AS AND WHEN SALE DEEDS ARE EXECUTED IN COURT OF SUB-REGIS TRAR, JAMMU. ANY DISPUTE WHICH MAY ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF TITLE OF LAND OR WITH ARMY ADJOINING THE PROPOSED LAND, SHALL BE THE RESPONSIB ILITY OF THE PARTY OF IST PART SH. P.L. SARAF (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER) AND IF LAND AT SIGHT MEASURES LESS THAN 37 KANAL, AMOUNT SHALL BE REDUCE D PROPORTIONATELY. 7.1. FURTHER PAGE-6 OF ANNEXUREA-4 CONTAINS CONSOLI DATED RECEIPT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,72,25,000/- ARE AS FOLLOWS: 7 DATE AMOUNT (RS. 19.05.2006 2,00,00,000/- 31.05.2006 1,40,00,000/- 31.05.2006 32,25,000/- TOTAL RS.3,72,25,000/- THIS RECEIPT IS AS PER THE NON JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER WHICH IS DULY SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND THE WITNESSES. FURTHER, PAGE NO.2 CO NTAINED A RECEIPT OF RS.60,00,000/- IN CASH RECEIVED BY THE SELLER SH. P YARE LAL SARAF. PAGE NO.5 CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF THE TOTAL TR ANSACTIONS: TOTAL COST OF LAND 5,32,62,162/- PAID CASH AND CHEQUE UPTO 07.06.2006 4,98,72,000/ - BALANCE 36,90,162/- 27,00,000/- 9,90,162/- 9 MARLAS EXTRA 1,00,000/- 10,90,162/- TOTAL COST OF LAND 5,36,62,162/- REGISTER 8,70,000/- TOTAL EXP. 5,45,32,162/- THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONFRONTED THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK HIS EXPLANATION O N THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE AMOUNT SPENT ON THE PURCHASE OF THE IMPUGNED LA ND. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY TO THE AOS QUERY AS UNDER: 8 THE APPLICANT IS CO-OWNER OF LAND MEASURING 37 KAN AL PURCHASED FROM SH. PYARE LAL SARAF AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. THE DETAILS OF CO- OWNERS ARE AS FOLLOWS: I) CH. NAGAR SINGH 40% II) CH. JAGAR SINGH 40% III) CH. RAM PAL 10% IV) CH.RAKESH KUMAR 10% DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ONE AGREEMENT TO SELL DULY SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTIES WAS SEIZED AND AS PER THIS AGREE MENT THE AFORESAID LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A SUM OF RS.5,40,00 ,000/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID AT RS.3,72,72,000/- . ACTUALLY THE SELL ER HAD INITIALLY AGREED TO SELL THE LAND WHICH HAD A VERY BIG FRONT AND WE WER E SHOWN THE AREA ACCORDINGLY, WE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SH. PYARE LALS FAMILY. LATER ON, THE FRONT PORTION ADJOINING THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY WAS REDUCED TO 20 FEET APPROXIMATELY AND WE FOUND THAT THE FRONT PORT ION BELONGED TO SOME OTHER PERSON AND SH. PYARE LAL SARAFT COULD NOT STR IKE A DEAL WITH HIM AND ACCORDINGLY WE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO PURCHASE THE BA CK PORTION FROM PYARE LAL IN LIEU OF THE FRONT PORTION. NOW SINCE THE WHO LE PLAN OF BUILDING THE FLATS ON THIS PORTION OF LAND AS WELL AS THE COMMER CIAL PURPOSE WAS DEFEATED, WE INSISTED UPON THE REDUCTION OF THE PURCHASE PRIC E. WE EVEN THREATENED TO WITHDRAW FROM THE DEAL BUT SINCE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID, WE REFUSED TO PAY ANY FURTHER AMOUNT AND GOT REGIST RATION IN OUR FAVOUR. IT 9 MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THERE IS ARMY CAMP ADJOINING OUR LAND AND THEY DID NOT ALLOW US TO BUILT THE BOUNDARY WALL A DJOINING THE CAMP AND ACCORDINGLY WE WERE FORCED TO BUILD BOUNDARY WALL BY LEAVING SOME PORTION ON THE SIDE WHICH ALSO REDUCED OUR UTILITY OF THE L AND. WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH COPY OF MAP AND ALSO PHOTOGRAPH TO SUBSTAN TIATE THE ABOVE POINT. AN AFFIDAVIT OF PYARE LAL DULY ATTESTED IS ALSO BEI NG ENCLOSED HEREWITH. AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE FOR SALE DEED IS RS.3,72,72,000/- COMPRISING OF CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.98,72,000/- AN D BALANCE CASH OF RS.2,74,00,000/- AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- ANNEXURE PAGE AMOUNT NATURE MB-5, A-4 1-11 2,00,00,000/- CASH 1,40,00,000/- CASH 32,25,000/- CHEQUE AS PER DOCUMENT SEIZED THE TOTAL CASH PAID WAS RS.3 ,40,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.66,00,000/- WAS RETURNED BY PYARE LAL S ARAF IN CASH. SO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF NET CASH PAID TO PYARE LAL SARAF WORKS OUT TO RS.2,74,00,000/-. FURTHER AS PER STATEMENT OF PYARE LAL SARAF THE VENDOR OF LAND, THE DEAL WAS FIXED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,72,7 2,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.98,72,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND BALANCE SUM OF RS.2,74,00,000/- IN CASH. AS SUCH, THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS R S.3,72,72,000/- AND NOT RS.5,40,00,000/-. 10 THE STATEMENT OF MR. PYARE LAL SARAF IS AS UNDER: THERE WAS A DEAL BETWEEN US. AS PER THIS DEAL AN AMOUNT OF RS.3.72 CRORES WAS FIXED AND RECEIVED OUT OF WHICH RS.98,72 LACS WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2 .74 CRORE WAS RECEIVED IN CASH FROM CH. NAGAR SINGH. IT MAY BE CL ARIFIED HERE THAT INITIALLY RS.60 LACS WAS PAID, THEN 1.40 CRORE WAS PAID AND AGAIN RS.1.40 CRORE WAS PAID, FURTHER CHEQUES OF RS.32,25 LACS WERE PAID BY SH. NAGAR SINGH. LATER ON, RS.66 LACS WAS PAID BY C HEQUES AGAINST WHICH I RETURNED HIM BACK RS. 66 LACS APPROX. AS SUCH YOUR GOODSELF WILL FIND THAT A SPER THE EV IDENCE FOUND IN THE FORM OF RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT BY CASH, PAYMEN T MADE BY CHEQUES AND STATEMENT OF PYARE LAL RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE SALE DEED MATERIALIZED FOR RS.3,72,72,000/- AS AGAI NST RS.5,40,00,000/-. THUS, THE DETAILS OF TOTAL PAYME NT MADE BY THE CO- OWNERS IN CASH AND BY CHEQUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: S.NO. NAME PAYMENT BY CASH PAYMENT BY CHEQUE REGISTRATION CHARGES PAID IN CASH 1. CH.NAGAR SINGH 11268800/- 36400000/- 348000/- 2. CH.JAGAR SINGH 10821800/- 4087000/- 3500000/- 3. CH.RAM PAL 2647200/- 1080000/- 76300/- 4. CH.RAKESH KUMAR 2662200/- 1065000/- 66200/- TOTAL 27400000/- 9872000/- 840500/- THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS HAVE DULY BEEN TAKEN IN TO C ONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SURRENDER 7.2. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPELLANTS REP LY PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,40,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 11 A) DULY SIGNED AGREEMENT ALONGWITH WITNESSES HAS BEEN SEIZED AS PER WHICH THE TOTAL DEAL WAS FOR 37 KANAL S OF LAND SITUATED AT NARWAL BYE PASS ROAD, JAMMU FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS .5.40 CRORES. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT NOW ARGUE THAT THIS DEAL WAS NOT FOR RS.540 CRORE AND WAS FOR RS.3.72 CRORE. B) DULY STAMPED RECEOIPTS FOR RS.4,00,00,000/- I.E . RS.3,40,00,000/- BY CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS ON NON-J UDICIAL STAMP PAPERS AND RS.60,00,000/- ON PLAIN PAPER PAID UPTO 31.5.2006 HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED BESIDES PAYAMENTS BY CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.98,72,000/-. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED BACK RS.66,00,000/- FROM SH. PYARE LAL SARAF AT THE TIME OF PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO RELY UPON THE STA TEMENT OF SH. PYARE LAL SARAF RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IT IS PER TINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT SH. PYARE LAL WAS SEARCHED ON 20.04.2007 AFTER ONE DAY FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH OF CH. NAGAR SINGH. AS SUCH THE STAT EMENT OF SH. PYARE LAL SARAF IS FABRICATED STORY SUITING TO CH. NAGAR SINGH AS WELL AS TO SH. PYARE LAL SARAF. C) THE ARGUMENT OF SH. NAGAR SINGH THAT AT THE TIM E OF AGREEMENT SH.PYARE LAL SARAF HAD AGREED TO SELL BIG FRONT OF THE PLOT AND LATER ON THE FRONT PORTION WAS REDUCED TO 20 FT . APPROXIMATELY AND AS SUCH THE DEAL WAS NEGOTIATED IS ALSO AN AFTER TH OUGH AND FABRICATED STORY SINCE THE SEIZED AGREEMENT TO SELL THERE IS N O SUCH REFERENCE. D) THE ARGUMENT OF CH. NAGAR SINGH THAT DUE TO ARM Y CAMP ADJOINING TO LAND, THEY DID NOT ALLOW TO BUILT THE BOUNDARY WALL ADJOINING THE CAMP AND ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE FORCED TO BUILT BOUNDARY WALL BY LEAVING SOME PORTION ON THE SITES ALSO DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN ALL THESE FACTORS WERE KNOWN TO THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE DEAL AS THE ARMY DID NOT COME SUDDENLY THERE. THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO ASSERTIONS MEN TIONED AT POINTS A) TO D) SUPRA. E) A DIARY MARKETED ANNEXURE A-7 WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH FROM THE RESIDENCE OF CH. NAGAR SINGH, PAGE NO.1 OF WHICH CONTAINS THE VALUE OF LAND MEASURING 37 KANAL AT RS.5,45,50, 000/- AND THE PAYMENTS MADE BY CH. NAGAR SINGH, CH. JAGAR SINGH, CH. RAM PAL AND CH. RAKESH KUMAR. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF PAGE 1 OF THE DIARY IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 12 37 KANAL LAND PURCHASED. TOTAL CH.JAGAR SINGH JI RS.5,45,50,000/- CH.NAGAR SINGH JI RS.2,45,47,500/- CH.RAM PAL SINGH JI, RS.2,45,47,500/- CH. RAKESH SINGH JI RS.27,27,500/- CH. RAKESH SINGH JI. RS.27,27,500/- KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS, SEIZURE OF DU LY SIGNED AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR RS.5.40 CRORE PARTICULARLY WH EN THE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON, CH. NAGAR SINGH CANNOT ARGUE THAT THIS LAND WAS NOT PURCHASED BY HIM FOR A SUM OF RS.5.40 CRORE AND WAS PURCHASED FOR A SUM OF RS.3.72 CRORE. ACCORDINGLY, I TAKE THE VALUE OF THI S LAND AT RS.5.40 CRORE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED A SUM RS.3,72 ,72,000/- IN HIS FUND FLOW STATEMENT. HENCE, I MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,6 7,28,000/- I.E. RS.5,40,00,000/- MINUS RS.3,72,72,000/- AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS. I) CH. NAGAR SINGH 40% 6691200/- II) CH. JAGAR SINGH 40% 6691200/- III) CH.RAM PAL 10% 1672800/- IV) CH. RAKESH KUMAR 10% SINCE CH. RAM PAL IS NOT ASSESSED WITH THIS OFFICE AS SUCH THE JURISDICTION OVER HIM. WITH REGARD TO CH. JAGAR SINGH AND CH. RA KESH KUMAR ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.66,91,200/- AND RS.16,72,800/- ARE BEING MADE IN THEIR CASES. 13 8. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SUB MISSIONS AND ADDUCED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A AND THE SAID APPLICATION FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THIS IS REFERENCE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE THAT IT IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE REPORT OF PATWARI HALKA PREPARED ON THE DIRECTI ON OF TEHSILDAR IS AN IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS IT IS THE ROO T OF THE MATTER IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE AND IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO DO JUS TICE IN THE CASE. THE SAID REPORT COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER INSPITE OF REPEATED EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE NISHANDEHI OF THE LAND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AS A PART OF LAND WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND EARLIER. AS PER THE RULE 46A(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE CAN BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE WORTHY CIT(A) WHERE THE APPELLA NT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED TO YOUR GOODSELF THAT TH E REPORT OF THE PATWARI, HARLKA FOR NISHANDEHI AND MEASUREMENT OF A CTUAL POSSESSION OF LAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE MAY PLEASE BE TAKEN I NTO RECORDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. ATTESTED PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AL ONGWITH ENGLISH TRANSLATED COPY ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 9. COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SENT TO THE A.O., WHO SUBMITTED THE REPORT AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPORT OF THE A.O. AND COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 11 & 12 OF HIS ORDER DECIDED THE ISSUE, WHICH IS R EPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: 14 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE IS SUE AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS AS WELL AS AOS COMMENTS ON THE SAME. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF FINAL MEASUREMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL LAND TRANSFERRED FROM THE SELL ER TO THE BUYER AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE IN THE NATURE OF AN AFTER THOUGHT OR A SELF SERVING EVIDENCE. IT IS A DOCUMENT WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES COULD NOT CARRY OUT THE SAID MEASUREMEN T AND THE APPELLANT BECAUSE OF HIS SPECIFIC PERSONAL PROBLEMS COULD NOT PURSUE IT AS WELL. THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS EVIDENCE AT T HE APPELLATE STAGE IS ESSENTIAL TO GET TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND TO DISPOSE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT PATIALA VS. CHITOSHO MOTORS IN I NCOME TAX APPEAL NO.741 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2011 HAS CLEA RLY HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT EXPECTED TO TAKE TECHNICAL PLEA O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEN SUCH EVIDENCE MAY ADVANCE THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE FILED I S ALLOWED. 12. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE IS THAT WHETHER THE BUYERS AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF REGISTRATION DEED HAD PASSED T HE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,40,00,000/- OR NOT. THE DOCUM ENTS PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION AND THE CONSEQUENT PAYMENT S MADE EITHER IN CHEQUE OR IN CHAS HAD BEEN SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WILL GET REDUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTUAL LAND TRAN SFERRED IS LOGICALLY ACCEPTABLE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE AGR EEMENT TO SELL AND DULY CONFIRMED BY THE SELLER DURING THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4). HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO KEEP I N MIND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS IN CAS H BY BUYERS TO THE SELLERS. THE DOCUMENT AT SL. NO. 5 AND 6 OF ANN EXURE A-4 CLEARLY RECORD THE EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF SALE CONSIDERATI ON TO THE TUNE OF RS.4.98 CRORES BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE TRAN SFER OF REST OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BEEN ASSUMED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. SINCE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AND RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION . THE ADDITIONS TO BE MADE IN THIS REGARD HAVE TO BE ON THE BASIS OF S UCH DOCUMENTS AND ANY EXTRAPOLATION WOULD NOT BE LOGICAL. THE FOLLOWI NG HAS BEEN CLEARLY RECORDED ON PAGE NO.5:- 15 DATE PARTICULARS AMOUNT 19/05 TOTAL CASH PAID 2,00,00,000 31/05 TOTAL CASH PAID 1,40,00,000 CHEQUE 3,40,00,000 98,72,000 4,38,72,000 07/06/06 CASH PAID 60,00,000 4,98,72,000 PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT REVEALS THAT AN AMOU NT OF RS.60,00,000/- HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH ON 07.06.2006 FOR WHICH SEPARATE RECEIPTS HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. THIS AMOUNT AND THE SOURCE THEREOF HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE BUYERS ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN REDUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTUAL LAND TRANSFERRED. HOW EVER, THE BUYERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO FROM WHAT SOURC E PAYMENTS OF RS.60,00,000/- ON 07.06.2006 HAD BEEN MADE AS THE D OCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH HAS TO BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY AN D NOT IN PARTS. IF THE REST OF THE RECORDINGS ON THE IMPUGNED PAPER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT, SOME PART OF IT CAN NOT BE TREATED T O BE OF NO RELEVANCE AND IMAGINARY. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE BUYERS HAD PAID RS.60,00,000/- IN CASH WHICH LATER ON HAD BEEN RETU RNED BY THE SELLERS BECAUSE OF THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENT BEING LESS THAN 3 7 KANALS. THIS MEANS THAT THE BUYERS HAD UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 60,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.60,00,000/- BEING TOTAL CO NSIDERATION RECEIVED AND NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IS CONFIRMED. THE SH ARE OF THE APPELLANT WOULD BE RS.24,00,000/-. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO AT THE TIME OF MAKING ADDITION HAS TREATED THE PAYMENT OF SALE CON SIDERATION BY CHEQUE TO THE TUNE OF RS.98,72,000/- ALSO ON UNACCO UNTED WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.66,00,000/- WAS RETURNED AS STATED BY THE PURCHASER/SELLER DURING THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.98,7 2,000/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLERS IS AS PER THE FOLLOWING DET AILS: REGARDING THE PAYMENTS OF RS.98,72,000/- AS SHOWN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE SAID PAY MENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES TO THE FAMILY OF TREHANS AGAINST THE LAND PURCHASED UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THESE PA YMENTS WERE 16 MADE AND PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND WERE DULY REFLEC TED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER. THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT AND LAND PURCHASED ACCOUNT WERE FURNISHED B EFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVE R HE IGNORED THE FACTS AND MADE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND ON HIS ASSUMPTIONS. THE DETAIL S OF SUCH PAYMENTS AS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE SHEET SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER MEASUREMENT DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS SHOWN IN THE SEIZED RECORD 1. CH.NAGAR SINGH 2.3 5,80,000 3.7 9,00,000 4.0 10,80,000 4.0 10,80,000 TOTAL 13.10 36,40,000 2. CH.JAGAR SINGH 3.16 10,00,000 4.00 10,80,000 3.18 10,50,000 2.19 7,95,000 0.12 1,62,000 15.05 40,87,000 3. CH.RAM PAUL 10,80,000 4. CH.RAKESH KUMAR 10,65,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS OF RS.98,72,000/- MADE TH ROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL, THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE CH. NAGAR SINGH ARE AS UNDER: DATE BANK A/C CH.NO. PARTY AMOUNT (RS.) 07.06.2006 UCO BANK 17847 751053 NIRBHAY TREHAN S/O PYARE LAL SARAF R/O 31 A/D GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU. 10,80,000 07.06.2006 UCO BANK 751052 BANI TREHAN 9,00,000 17 17847 W/O NIRBHAY TREHAN R/O 31 A/D GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU 08.06.2006 UCO BANK 17847 751054 SEEMA MAGAINE D/O ASHOK VARUN R/O POONCH 5,80,000 12.06.2006 UCO BANK 17847 751055 RAJESH TREHAN S/O PYARE LALA TREHAN R/O GANDHI NAGAR, JAMMU. 10,80,000 THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE ABOVE PAYMENTS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THROUGH HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE UCO BANK, RAGHUNATH BAZAR, JAMMU. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION, AN AMOUNT OF RS.60,00,000/- COULD BE SAID TO BE UNACCOUNTED AND THE SHARE OF THE APPE LLANT IN THE SAME AMOUNTS TO RS.24,00,000/-. THE REST OF THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. THE LD. DR , MR. TARSEM LAL, INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO PAGE 5 OF AOS ORDER, WHERE HE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID ANNEXURE AND ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS LOST SIGHT AND HAD NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID ANNEXURE. TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REBUTTAL TO THE EVIDENCE OR ANY EXPLANATION BEF ORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. 18 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEPT THE ADDITION CONFIRM ED AND ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ONLY 29 KANAL AND 18 MARLAS OF LAND COULD BE POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BRO THERS AGAINST THE 36 KANAL AND 14 MARLAS LF LAND FOR WHICH DEAL WAS ORIG INALLY MADE. THE AO HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF ACT UAL AREA OF LAND 29.18 KANALS COMES TO AROUND RS.4.35 CRORES AND NOT RS. 3 .72 KANALS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS HE LOST SIGHT OF THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THA T FRONT PORTION HAS ADJOINING THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY WAS REDUCED TO 20 FE ET APPROXIMATELY AND FRONT PORTION BELONGED TO SOME OTHER PERSON AND SH. PYARE LALA COULD NOT STRIKE A DEAL WITH HIM. HE HAS NO OPTION BUT TO PUR CHASE THE BACKWARD PORTION FROM SH.PYARE LAL SARAF IN LIEU OF THE FRON T PORTION. SINCE THE WHOLE PLAN OF BUILDING THE FLATS ON THIS PORTION OF LAND AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE WAS DEFEATED, THE ASSESSEE INSISTED UPON TH E REDUCTION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. AND EVEN THREATENED TO WITHDRAW FR OM THE DEAL BUT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT HAD ALREADY PASSED ON TO THE SEL LER, ACCORDINGLY FURTHER AMOUNT WAS REFUSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT AND REGISTRATION DEED WAS GOT DONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE AO AND THERE IS ARMY CAMP ADJOINING THIS LAND AND TH EY DID NOT ALLOW TO BUILD 19 THE BOUNDARY WALL BY LEAVING SOME PORTION ON THE SI DES WHICH ALSO REDUCED UTILITY OF THE LAND. COPY OF MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS TO SUBSTANTIATE OUR POINT ALONGWITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. PYARE LAL SARAF WAS SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. THUS THE REDUCTION O F PRICE TO RS.3.72 CRORES FROM INITIAL DEAL OF 5.40 CRORES WAS DUE TO THE RE ASONING MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 11.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INVI TED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ON RECORD WHERE IT IS MENTION ED THAT IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF TITLE OF LAND OR WITH ARMY ADJOINING THE PROPOSED LAND, SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SH. PYARE LAL SARAF AND FOR THE LAND AT SIGHT MEASURES LESS THAN 37 KANALS PRICE SHALL BE R EDUCED FOR ANY REDUCTION IN LAND PROPORTIONATELY. THE AO HAS WRONGLY IGNOR ED TO CONSIDER 20 FEET FRONT PORTION AND ITS EFFECT ON THE COMMERCIAL EXP EDIENCY OF THE LAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO WAS THAT IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.40 CRORES BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTR ATION . THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUD ING THAT RS.60,00,000/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID BACK INSPITE OF THE STATEMENT OF SH. PYARE LAL SARAF IN WHICH NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. THEREFORE, THE LAND DEAL WHICH WAS SETTLED AT RS.3.40 CRORES INSTEAD OF RS.5.40 CRORES SHOULD BE ACCEPTED, WAS PRAYED BY 20 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT AS PER THE CER TIFICATE OF TEHSILDAR, SETTLEMENT, JAMMU, WHO HAS VERIFIED AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE ACTUAL LAND IN POSSESSION WAS 29 KANALS 18 MARLAS AND THIS FACT C ANNOT BE DISPUTED. THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT GET THE FRONT PORTION I.E. 20 FEET OWNED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY WHICH B ELONGED TO SOME OTHER PERSON. THIS HAS BEEN STATED BY SH. PYARE LAL SARAF AND WE FIND NO REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING BY THE AO THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE TWO REASONS AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE BOT H THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND BEFORE US THAT THE LAND GIVEN AS A RESULT OF R ESETTLEMENT OF DEAL WAS OF RS.3.72 CRORES INSTEAD OF RS.5.40 CRORES I.E. THE R EDUCTION OF FRONT PORTION OF 20 FEET AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, HAS DEFEATED THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF THE LAND AND REDUCTION OF LAND FROM 37 KANALS TO 29 KANALS 18 MARLAS LEADING TO FURTHER REDUCTION OF PRICE. THIS REDUCTI ON OF PRICE IS PART OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND NO DE FECT IN THE SAME HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. EVE N IF TAKING PROBABILITIES THEN THE MATTER GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THA T DUE TO REDUCTION OF FRONT PORTION OF 20 FEET, THE WHOLE PLAN OF BUILDING THE FLATS ON THE PORTION OF LAND 21 AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. BUT SINCE SU BSTANTIAL AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED TO THE SELLER, THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT COME BACK AND THEREFORE, THE DEAL GOT RESETTLED AT RS.3.72 CR ORES INSTEAD OF RS.5.45 CRORES AS PER ANNEXURE. THE STATEMENT TAKEN DURING SEARCH HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE IS UNDISPUTED AND IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH THE REASONS FOR REDUCTION OF LAND AND WITH REDUCTION OF FRONT PORTION HAS BEEN STATED BY THE SELLER CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED RS.60 LACS AN D THEREFORE, IS NO JUSTIFIED IN RETAINING THE PROPORTIONATE OF RS.60 LACS TO T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13 . NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O.342(ASR)/2013 AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.376(ASR)/2013 I N THE CASE OF CH. JAGAR SINGH. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENTS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.341(ASR)2011 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN ITA NO.375(ASR)/2013 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, DECI DED BY US HEREINABOVE AND AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, OUR ORDER IN THE CAS E OF CH. NAGAR SINGH IN ITA NO.3419ASR)/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) AND IN ITA NO.375(ASR)/2013 (REVENUES APPEAL) SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.342(ASR)/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL ) AND IN ITA NO .376(ASR)/2013 22 (REVENUES APPEAL), ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED IN THE CASE OF C H. JAGAR SINGH. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S IN ITA NOS.341 & 342(ASR)/2013 ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE I N ITA NOS. 375 & 376(ASR)/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28TH APRIL, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES: I) SH. NAGAR SINGH (II) SH.JAGAR SI NGH, JAMMU. 2. THE ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR
