Shri Pradeep Govil, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5536/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2997 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Source of fund; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Benefit of exemption; Onus to prove; Reason to believe; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 234B; 147; 131; 69; 54; 132; 92

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5536/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) DR. PRADEEP GOVIL, C - 16/3, SFS, DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI PAN:ACLPG9864B VS. ITO, WARD - 37(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5861/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12) MRS. NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL, C - 16/3, SFS, DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI PAN:ACLPG9864B VS. ITO, WARD - 37(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJESH JAIN, CA REVENUE BY: SH. SS RANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 09/05 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 / 05 / 2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. BOTH THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE PERTAINING TO TWO ASSESSEE WHO ARE SPOUSE AND COMMON ISSUES OF THE TAXABILITY IS INVOLVED ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OF ONE PROPERTY AND HENCE, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ALSO DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THESE ARE THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 20, NEW DELHI DATED 07.08.2015 AND CIT(A) - 21, NEW DELHI DATED 14.09.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. PAGE 2 OF 39 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5536/DEL/2015 : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID UNDISCLOSED CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 22,50,OOO/ - FOR PURCHASING OF SFS FLAT IN SAKET FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI ON THE BASIS OF SOME PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT & RECEIPT SUP PLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI AFTER APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT AT SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT ON 21.02.2011 WHEN SHE WAS CARRYING CASH OF RS. 35,00,000/ - 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELY ING ON THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI MECHANICALLY ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, NEW DELHI, WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND INDEPENDENTLY ON THE EVIDENCE(S) AND WITHOUT HER EXAMINATION ON OATH & THUS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY INDEPENDENTLY AND ON MERELY RELYING ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICER, MADE ADDITION OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) RESPECTIVELY IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINING MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE . 5. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,50,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY O N WHIMSICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT PURSUING THE BONAFIDE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY PERVERSE AND ARBITRARILY AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LAW. 6. THAT THE ORDERS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER &CIT (A) IS HIGHLY ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUS, UNWARRANTED AND ARE NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE & AS PER LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER LAW. 7. THAT LEVYING THE INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5861/DEL/2015: - 1. THAT THE LD, CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WHICH HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INITIATED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WHICH EXCLUDES INVOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT IN CASE OF MATERIAL/ VALUABLES FOUND CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT. THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING VALUABLES WHICH WERE RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT WER E FOUND IN POSSESSION OF SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT ON 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT IN MUMBAI. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE PAGE 3 OF 39 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED. C IT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,50,0007 - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD PAID UNDISCLOSED CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 22,50,000/ - FOR PURCHASING OF SFS FLAT IN SAKET FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI ON THE BASIS OF SOME PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT & RECEIPT SUPPLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI AFTER APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH IN CONSEQU ENCE TO SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT AT SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT ON 21.02.2011 WHEN SHE WAS CARRYING CASH OF RS. 35,00,000/ - 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI MECHANICALLY ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, NEW DELHI, WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND INDEPENDENTLY ON THE EVIDENCE(S) AND WITHOUT HER EXAMINATION ON OATH & THUS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE APPELLANT INDEPENDENTLY AND ON MERELY RELYING ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICER, MADE ADDITION OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELL ANT. 5. THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) RESPECTIVELY IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINING MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,50,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON WHIMSICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT PURSUING THE B ONAFIDE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CH(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY PERVERSE AND ARBITRARILY AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LAW. 7. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER &CIT (A) IS HIGHLY ARB ITRARILY, CAPRICIOUS, UNWARRANTED AND ARE NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE & AS PER LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER LAW. 8. THAT LEVYING THE INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SH. PRADEEP GOVIL APPELLANT IN ITA NO. 5536/DEL/2015 IS AN INDIVIDUAL MEDICAL PRACTI TI ONER WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.09.2011 SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 1622950/ - . THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS WIFE MR. NEELAM PRAS AD GOVIL, APPELLANT IN ITA NO. 5861/DEL/2015, HAS PURCHASED ONE PROPERTY SITUATED AT FLAT NO. C - 16 - 3, SAKET, NEW DELHI FROM MR. SUCHITRA VEMURI AND SMT SONALI MEHRA VIDE SALE DEED DATED 23.11.2010 FOR A SUM OF RS. 12500000/ - . SMT SUCHITRA VEMURI WAS INTERC EPTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI ON 21.02.2011 AT SATA CRUZ AIRPORT, MUMBAI AND RS. 35 LAKHS IN CASH WERE SEIZED FROM HER. THEREFORE, ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AND DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED RS. 45 LAKHS ON SALE PAGE 4 OF 39 OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE JOINTLY. IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO. 6 TO 8 OF HER STATEMENT RECORDED ON 21.02.2011 ARE AS UNDER: - Q6. ON INTERCEPTION AT CHATRAPAT I SHIVA]I AIRPORT, MUMBAI TODAY ON 21.2.2011 WHEN YOU ARRIVED FROM DELHI TO MUMBAI BY GO AIR FLIGHT NO. G8 - 105 YOU HAVE DECLARED THAT YOU ARE CARRYING CASH RS. 35 LAKHS AND GOLD JEWELLERY ITEMS WEIGHING 20 GMS. WORTH RS 50641/ - BELONGING TO YOURSELF. PLEA SE EXPLAIN S TO WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH AND JEWELLERY. A NS: I CONFIRM THAT ON ARRIVING FROM DELHI TO MUMBAI BY GO AIR FLIGHT NO. G8 - 105 I INITIALLY DECLARED ABOUT CARRYING CASH RS. 10 LAKHS AND GOLD JEWELLERY ITEMS WEIGHING 20 GMS. WORTH RS.50000/ - BELONGING TO MYSELF. LATER ON I REVISED THE AMOUNT OF CASH CARRIED TO RS.25LACS AND FINALLY TO RS.3S LACS. SINCE I AM TRAVELLING ALONE AND NEVER CARRIED SO MUCH CASH AND NEVER FACED SUCH SITUATION EARLIER I WAS CONFUSED AND SCARED HENCE COULD N OT STATE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CASH IN MY BAG. THE SOURCE OF THE CASH RS.35 LACKS IS SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SE LLING MY FLAT & FURNITURE AT C16/3, SF S DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI 110017 TO DR. SHRI PRADIP GOVIL & DR.SMT GOVIL VIDE SALE DEED DTD.24 TH NOVEMBER,2010 .THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER DEED IS RS,L,25,00,000/ - I .E. RS. ONE CRORE TWENTY FIVE LACS .HOWEVER I HAVE ALSO RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.45 LACS IN CASH WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED. THE CASH AMOU NTING TO RS.45 LACS INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF RS.6 LACS FOR SALE OF FURNITURE IN THE SAME FLAT WHICH WAS SUPPOSEDLY PAID THROUGH CHEQUE BUT THE SAME BOUNCED AND HENCE (RECEIVED RS.6 LACKS IN CASH. THE CASH OF RS. 35,00,000/ - RS. THIRTY FIVE LACKS CARRIED B Y ME IS THE SAME WHICH I HAVE RECEIVED FROM DR.SHRI PRADIP GOVIL & DR.SMT GOVIL AGAINST SALE OF MY FLAT. I AM CARRYING THE CASH AS I WAS PLANNING TO PURCHASE A NEW HOUSE IN MUMBAI, AND I HAD PLANNED TO DECLARE IN MY RETURN OF INCOME TO BE FILED FOR CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF FLAT & PAGE 5 OF 39 FURNITURE AFTER REFLECTING THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.70 CRORES AND ACQUIRING NEW FLAT. I HAVE PAID BROKERAGE FOR SALE OF FLAT AMOUNTING TO RA.L,25,000/ - ONE LAC TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND TO SHRI SUDHANSHU SHARMA ,C 16/4, SFS DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI 110017, I THINK HS.75000/ WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND THE BALANCE RS. 50000/ - BY CASH. AS FAR AS THE JEWELLERY IS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS BEEN PURCHASED FROM MY RETAINER SHIP INCOME AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AS UNDER RS.11000/ - THROUGH CREDIT CARD & RS.39641/ - IN CASH. Q.7 I AM SHOWING YOU THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CURRENCY NOTE BUNDLE BANK WRAPPERS/FLAPS IN RESPECT OF THE RS.35 LACS CARRIED BY YOU. PLEASE CONFIRM AND EXPLAIN AS TO WHEN EXACTLY YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT? ANS: I CONFIRM THAT THE PHOTOCOPIES SHOWN TO ME ARE OF THE CURRENCY NOTE BUNDLE WRAPPERS/FLAPS IN RESPECT OF THE RS.35 LACS CARRIED BY ME . I HAVE RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT ON 22 ND OR 23 RD NOVEMBER 2010. Q.8. YOUR ANSWER TO Q,6 INDICA TES THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED CASH RS. 45 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLAT & FURNITURE APART FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.25 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED DTD.24.11.2010 WHICH HAS NEITHER BEEN RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED NOR YOU HAVE PAID TAX ON THE S AME. FURTHER THE SALE DEED HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED. AS SUCH THE SOURCE OF THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 35 LACS CARRIED BY YOU HAS NOT BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED AND PROVED BY YOU . HENCE THE SAID AMOUNT IS BEING SEIZED, COPY OF PANCHANAMA AND INVENTORY OF CASH SEIZED IS BEING GIVEN TO YOU AND THE FILE WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI IN DUE COURSE. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? ANS: - I CONFIRM THE ABOVE AND DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR THE SAME AND WISH TO CLARIFY THAT OUT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 45 LACS ,RS. 10 LACS HAS BEEN UTILIZED AS UNDER: FOR PURCHASE OF FURNITURE RS 2 TO 3 LACS, GOLD JEWELLERY RS.L,70,000/ - ,BROKERAGE RS.50,000/ - , LAWYER FEES RS.20,000/ - ,CLOTHES & HOLIDAY RS.1 LAC, CREDIT CARD RS.30,000/ - ,D EPOS I TE D IN STATE BANK OF MYSORE, MUMBAI ETC. PAGE 6 OF 39 FURTHER I WISH TO CLARIFY THAT I RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THE SALE OF THE FLAT (C 16/3 SFS DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI 110017) AND WAS INSISTING ON A FULL CHEQUE PAYMENT BUT FAILED TO CONVINCE THE BROKER AND BUYER, WH O WERE PRESSURIZING ME TO SELL. AS I WAS IN POOR MENTAL HEALTH AFTER THE DEMISE OF MY HUSBAND, I SUCCUMBED TO THE PRESSURE. I SPOKE WITH MY ACCOUNTANT ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND HE CONVINCED ME THAT WE CAN DECLARE THE FULL DETAILS OF THE SALE - INCLUDING THE AM OUNT RECEIVED IN CASH - WITH MY TAX RETURNS FOR 2010 - 2011 BUT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO FIRST LEAVE THE PREMISES WHERE I WAS BEING HARASSED BY THE BROKER TO SELL TO THIS PARTICULAR BUYER. IN FACT, THE BROKER DID NOT INFORM ME OF ANOTHER BUYER WHO WAS WILLING TO PAY RS 1.81 CRORE TOTALLY BY CHEQUE. SO, ACCORDINGLY, I ACCEPTED PART CASH PAYMENT FROM DR GOVIL AND MRS DR. GOVIL. I WILL PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED WHEN I RETURN TO DELHI. 6. THEREFORE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY OWNED RS. 45 LACS AS SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE DECLARED CONSIDERATION OF RS 1.25 CRORES AND PAID DUE TAX THEREON AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELLER THE ASSESSEE BUYER WAS EXAMINED AND HE DENIED HAVING PAID ANY SUCH PAYMENT AND ALSO DENIED THE CONTENT OF RECEIPT CUM AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 02/09/2010. EVEN CROSS - EXAMINATION OF BUYER ASSESSEE GRANTED TO THE SELLER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SELLER WAS NOT AVAILED BY THE SELLER. 7. THEREFORE, ON THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A BOVE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 1.25 CRORES ONLY AND THERE WAS NO CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 45 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: - IN THIS CASE, AN INFORMATION FROM THE ACI F. CENTRAL CIRCLE 13. NEW DELHI HAS B EEN RECEIVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A FLAT NO. C - 16 3. SKS DDA FIATS. SAKET. NEW DELHI FROM SMT. SUCHITA VI MURI . AS PER PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT PAGE 2 (ANNE X URE) CLEARL Y S HO WS THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION FIXED WAS RS. 1,70.00,000/ - . FURTHER THE AGREEM ENT ALSO SHOWS A RECEIPT OF RS. 44.00.000 - IN PAGE 7 OF 39 CASH WHICH PAID BY SH. PRADIP GOVIL AND DR. NEELAM PRASAD ON 16.1 1.2010.. THIS RECEIPT WAS WITNESSED BY SH. SUDHANSHU SHARMA AND SH. SK DHAMIJA. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED HERE THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUCHITA VIMURI AT SANTACRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT MUMBAI ON 21.02.2011 BY THE AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT MUMBAI. AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH ACTION, CASH WORTH RS. 35.00.000 - WAS SEIZED IRON HER AND SHE AD MITTED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 35.00.000/ - IN HER POSSESSION WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 125,00,000/ - OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO C - 16/3. SFS. DDA FLATS. SAKET. NEW DELHI WHICH SHE RECEIVED FROM THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY I.E. SH. PRADECP GOVII AND SMT. NEELAM PRASAD. THE PROPERTY WAS STATED TO H \ E BEEN SOLD ON 24.11.2010. SMT SUCHITA VIMURI HAD ADMITTED IN HER STATEMENT THAT APART FROM THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.25 CRORES IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY SHE HAD RECEIVED CASH WORTH 45 LAKH AS SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS UNDISCLOSED AND HAS DECLARED RS. 170,00,000/ - IN HER RETURN OF INCOME AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF FLAT NO. C, 16/3 SFS. DDA FLAT SAKET. NEW DELHI AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 ACCORD INGLY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSES WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY C - 16/3, SFS DDA FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20/2 2014 HAS STATED THAT I) I AM WIFE (MRS. NEELMA PRASAD GOVIL) JOINTLY PURCHASED A HOUSE PROPERTY (C16/3, FIRST FLOOR, SFS FLATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IN NOVEMBER 2010. THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 12500000/ - (RUPEES ONE CRORE AND TWENTY FIVE LAKHS ONLY.) II) THER E WAS NO CASH (REPEAT: NIL CASH) PAID TO SMT. VEMURI FOR THIS PURCHASE TRANSACTION. III. . IV) I WAS SUMMONED SEVERAL TIMES: ONCE BY INCOME TAX AIU (DURING APRIL 2011) AS WELL AS THRICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SMT. VEMURI IN CENTRAL CIRC LE 13. DELHI DURING DEC 2013 AND JAN 2013) IN RELATION TO THE MATTER OF SEIZURE OF CASH FROM SRNT. SUCHIU VERMIN AT THE AIRPORT. SMT. VEMURI HAD CLAIMED THAT THE MONEY SEIZED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS A PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE PROPERT Y. HOWEVER, I HAD THEN RELIED ON THE FACTS AND HAD STRONGLY DENIED HAVING PAID ANY CASH TO HER FOR THE HOUSE PURCHASE. MY STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD WAS RECORDED UNDER OATH BY AS,;. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13. JHANDEWALAN EXTN NEW DELHI ON 17.12.2012. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN THE COPY OF RECEIPT CUM AGREEMENT TO SELL (BAYANA RECEIPT) WRITTEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT NO. 175321 OF RS. 50 DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE DR. PRADEEP GOVIL AND HIS MRS. NEELAM PR ASAD GOVIL. ACCORDING TO THIS AGREEMENT. YOU HAVE AGREED TO PURCHASE THE PROPER!) FOR RS. 1.70 CRORE AND HAVE PAID RS. 1 LAC IN CASH AND 6 LACS BY CHEQUE ON 02.09.2010 AS PER PAGE 2. THE AGREEMENT IS ALSO CONTAINING ONE RECEIPT IN WHICH S MT . SU CHITRA VIMU RI HAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE RS. 44 PAGE 8 OF 39 L.ACS IN CASH FROM YOU ON 16.1 1.20I 0 (AS PER PAGE 3 OF ANNEXURE). PLEASE EXPLAIN IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS PURCHASED THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.25 CR ORES AND NOT RS. 1.70 CRORES. HE IS NOT NOT AWARE OF THE ABOVE SAID AGREEMENT WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED B Y HIM. ACCORDING TO HIM. HE IS NOT ABLE TO RECOLLECT AND SUCH AGREEMENT AND ASKED FOR THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATED 02.09.2010. THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SIGNATURES MADE BY THE AGREEMENT ON ALL 4 PAPERS ARE SIMILAR AND MATCH TO THE SIGNATURE MADE ON THE SALE DEED REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE PROPERTY THE OTHER TACT REGARDING ASKING FOR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS O F PROPERLY. I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT NO SELLER KEEPS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE DEAL. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE SELLER HAD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPERTY AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS, THE SELLER ALWAYS TAKES THE HAS AN FROM THE BUYER AND MAKE THE SIGN AFTER THOROUGH!) READING THE AGREEMENT AND HANDS OVER THE DOCUMENTS TO THE BUYER. THE QUESTION OF PROVIDING THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT RECEIPT DOES NOT ARISE AS THE ORIGINAL PAPERS MUST HAS BEEN WITH THE ASSESSEE BU S EN. THE SELLER HAS SHOWN IN HER RETURN OF INCOME THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.70 \ CRORES AS A SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY NO C - LO/J. SKS ODA FLAT. SAKET NEW DELHI. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS, THE PARENT OF RS. 45 LACS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN CASH IS AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO HIS INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN CONSIDERATION. 8. ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY 50% ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BALANCE 50%. IF ANY, IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: - 4.1 APP ELLANT SUBMISSION: - THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PROFESSION FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 27 !H SEPTEMBER 2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,22,S50/ - . THIS CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 143(2} OF IT ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED AND THE APPELLANT FILED NECESSARY DETAILS / INFORMATION / DOCUMENTS, ETC. AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TIME TO TIME. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE APPELLANT WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, NEW DELHI IN RESPECT OF PURCHASING SFS FLAT NO. C - 16/3, SAKET NEW DELHI FROM ONE SRI SUCHITA VEMURI BY THE HIM JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE DR . NEELAM PRASAD ON 13 LH NOVEMBER 2010 FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION UF RS. 1.70,00,000/ - CUT OR' WHICH RS. 45,00,0007 - ALLEGEDLY HAVING PAID IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE JOINTLY ON THE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT WHICH HAS BEEN SU PPLIED BY THE VENDOR SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON HER, CONDUCTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI ON 21 ST FEBRUARY 2011 A! SANIA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT WHEN CASH WORTH 35,00,000/ - WAS SE IZED FROM HER POSSESSION AND SHE STATED TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT RS. 45,00,000/ - WAS CASH CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE FOR PURCHASING FLAT IN PAGE 9 OF 39 SAKET, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS UNDISCLOSED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE APPELLANT FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FOR EXPLAINING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND DENIED ANY CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASING THE SAID PROPERLY. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SUMMONED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, NEW DELHI AND HIS S TATEMENT WAS RECORDED AND HE DID NOT ACCEPT HAVING PAID ANY CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - FOR BUYING THE SAID PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT THE OFFICERS C - F AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI SHOWE D SO CALLED PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT (WITHOUT SUPPLYING THE DOCUMENT AND STATEMENT OF SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI SHOWING CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1,25,00,0007 - AS SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY AND EMPHAT ICALLY STATED THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE AND THEY DID NOT PAY ANY CASH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINING SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO 'THE APPELLANT, DR PRADEEP GOV IL TO CROSS - EXAMINE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI MECHANICALLY RELIED UPON INFORMATION AND HER STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED' BY OFFICERS OF AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT ANCF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13. NEW DELHI, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT SMT. VEMURI WAS ALSO GIVEN TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL ON 28.12.2013 AND 11.01.2013 BUT SHE DID NOT PRESENT HERSELF FOR AVAILING THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLANT. THE PHOTOCOPY OF SO CALLED AGREEMENT ETC WAS SUPPLIED BY HE R SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEIZURE OF CASH AT AIRPORT AFTER APPROXIMATELY A MONTH WAS FABRICATED DOCUMENT, USING MODERN TECHNOLOGY OF SCANNING, PREPARED FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE SEIZURE OF CASH WAS APPROXIMATELY AFTER 3 MONTH OF EXECUTION OF SAL E DEED AND ALL THESE FACTS CUMULATIVELY EVEN DID NOT CONVINCE HER ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE ALSO DID NOT RELY THE CREDIBILITY OF HER STATEMENT AND VERACITY OF DOCUMENTS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN HER ASSESSMENT . COPY OF HER ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ILLEGAL ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT WHICH 'IS PRA YED TO BE DELETED AS HAVING BEEN MADE ON ;HE BASIS OF UNRELIABLE AND FABRICATED DOCUMENTS, (THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BY THE VENDOR, SUCHITA VEMURI) AND SELF SERVING STATEMENT OF THE VENDOR AND THAT TOO WITHOUT HER EXAMINING INDEPENDENTLY O N THE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF A SALE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NEVER EXECUTED AND SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT & HIS WIFE. HER STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) & 131 OF THE ACT WERE CONTRADICTORY AS SHE ASSERTED BEFORE SUB - REGISTRAR, NEW DELHI AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SAFE DEED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS. 1,25,00,000/ - AND AFTER INTERCEPTION HER ON AIRPORT, WHEN SHE WAS CARRYING CASH OF RS. 35,00,000/ - DURING AIR TRAVEL SHE HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT THE CASH FOUND MAY BE TREATED AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND HAS AVA ILED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U7S 54 FOR THIS AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TALLIED THE SIGNATURE ON THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH SIGNATURE ON THE SALE DEED, WHEREAS IN THE ERA OF HIGH PROFILE SCANNING OF DOCUMENTS, SCANNING OF SIGNATURES IS NOT DIFFICU LT AND THERE THE RELIANCE ON ANY PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR MAKING ADDITION IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL BEING SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS' FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS TREATING THE SAID INCOME TOWARDS SALE PROCEEDS OF HER FLAT AT SAKET SHALL MAKE THE SAID INCOME EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT OTHERWISE SHE WOULD PAY INCOME TAX AND PENALTY ON, THE SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SHE IS LAW GRADUATE AND MADE ENTIRE STORY AND PRODUCED THE SO CALLED AGREEMENT TO SELL HER PR OPERTY TO THE APPELLANT WITH CLEAR CUT MOTIVE TO SAVE HERSELF FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX ON HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF PAGE 10 OF 39 THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT SO CALLED CASH CONSIDERATION AS PER HER STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE COULD NOT BE SOLELY POSSESSED BY HER AS THE PROPERTY SOFD TO THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE WAS CO OWNED BY HER AND MRS. SOMALI MEHTA, 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THETA RS. 61, 22,9507 - AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 16. 22, 950/ - THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PROFESSION FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF RS. 16,22,950/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, NEW DELHI IN RESPECT OF PURCHASING SFS FIAT NO. C - 16/3, SAKET NEW DELH I FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI BY THE HIM JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE DR. NEELAM PRASAD ON 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,70,00,000/ - OUT OF WHICH RS. 45,00,000/ - ALLEGEDLY HAVING PAID IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE JOINTLY ON THE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE VENDOR SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON HER, CONDUCTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF INCOME TAX, MURNBAI ON 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 AT SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT WHEN CASH WORTH 35,00,0007 - WAS SEIZED FROM HER POSSESSION AND SHE STATED TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT RS. 45,00,0007 - WAS CASH CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE FOR PURCHASING FLAT IN SAKET, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS UNDI SCLOSED IN |HE REGISTERED SALE DEED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN THE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPTS CUM AGREEMENT TO SELL (BAYANA RECEIPT) WRITTEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT NO. U75327 OF RS.50/ - DULY SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WI FE. (WITHOUT SUPPLYING THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE DOCUMENT) ACCORDING THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 1.70 CRORES AND HAVE PAID RS. 1 LAC IN CASH AND 6 LACS BY CHEQUE ON 02,09.2010 (AS PER PAGE 2). IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE PURCHASED THE A:LEGED PROPERTY FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 1.25 CRORES AND NOT RS. 1.70 CRORES AND THERE IS NO SUCH AGREEMENT EVER PREPARED AND SIGNED BY HIM OR BY HIS WIFE EVER. HE IS NOT AWARE OF THE ABOVE SAI D AGREEMENT WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY HIM. THE - EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACE APT THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT SIGNATURES MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON AL! 4 PAPERS ARE SIMILAR AND ARE MATCH ON THE SALE DEED RE GISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF THE SFS FLAT NO.C - 16/3, SAKET NEW DELHI, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE ERA CR' HIGH PROFILE SCANNING OF DOCUMENTS, SCANNING OF SIGNATURES IS NOT DIFFICULT AND THEREFORE THE RELIANCE ON ANY PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR MAKING ADDITION 'IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,OOO/ - ALSO RELIED ON THE FACT THAT THE SELLER HAS SHOWN IN HER RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.70 CR ORES AS A SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY NO. C - 16/3. SFS DDA FIATS, SAKET, NEW DELHI. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DECLARING HIGHER CONSIDERATION FOR A SALE TRANSACTION IS NO WHERE RESTRICTED IN ANY LAW, IT IS ALSO USED BY SOME ASSESSES TO CONVERT T HEIR BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT IT MAY BE A METHOD APPLIED BY SUCHITA VEMURI TO CONVERT HER UNDISCLOSED MONEY AS SALE PROCEEDS OF HER FLAT IN SAKET NEW DELHI. SHE IS A WELL - EDUCATED LADY (BA.LLB). SHE HERS ELF HAS SIGNED THE SALE PAGE 11 OF 39 DEED DATED 23.11.2010 BEFORE THE SUB - REGISTRAR OF PROPERTIES IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESS IN WHICH SHE HAS ACCEPTED TO HAVE RECEIVED ONLY RS. 1,25,00,000/ - AS SALE CONSIDERATION. SHE HAS TREATED THE CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH AS PART OF THE SALES CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND HAS AVAILED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54. MOREOVER HAD SHE NOT BEEN CAUGHT WITH THE CASH BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SHE WOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED THE SAME AS SALE CONSIDERATION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT TH AT SHE HAS EXECUTED SALE DEED FOR RS.1,25,00,000/ - . WHEN THE APPELLANT ASKED FOR THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AGREEMENT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER SAID THAT 'NO SELLER KEEPS THE ORI GINAL DOCUMENT OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE DEAL. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE SELLER HAD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPERTY. '''THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FULLY ACCEPTABLE BUT IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NO ONE IN THE WORLD GIVES THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT TO ANY ONE WHICH CAN CAUSE HIM HARM IN FUTURE, IF WE OTHERWISE ACCEPT THAT THE ALLEGED DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE, THEN ALSO IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ANY ONE CAN GIVE THE COPY DOCUMENT TO OTHER, IN WHICH SALE CONSIDERATION IS TAKEN AT A HIGHER RATE THAN THE RATE MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL SA ES DEED AND WHICH CAN CAUSE HIM ADDITIONAL TAX AND LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION UNDER VARIOUS ACTS. THE APPELLANT IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IN WORLD AND LIKE ANY ONE HE WILL ALSO DOES NOT GIVE SUCH DOCUMENT WHICH CAN CAUSE HIM ADDITIONAL TAX. THE DOCUMENT 1 PROVIDED BY THE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI WAS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE REAL ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED, IN THIS APPEAL IS, WHETHER THE AO CAN REWRITE THE VAPIDLY EXECUTED SALE DEED AND SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN RECI - ALS IN THE PLACE OF RECITALS, AS INCORPORATED, IN THE SA'E DEED, PARTICULARLY M RESPECT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION, SPECIFIED THEREIN. CAN AO BRUSH ASIDE THE VALID SALE DEED AND DISREGARD THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ARISING UNDER SUCH A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PURCHASER AND SELLER AND DECIDE THE QUESTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION, PURELY ON THE BASIS OF BARE HUSK OF ORAL EVIDENCE, IN THE SHAPE OF INVALID PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL, SUPPLIED BY SUNITA VERMURI FOR EXPLAINING THE UNDISCLOSED CASH FOUND IN HER POSSESSION. THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, AS OBTAINED BY FRAU D OR COERCION BY THE SELLER OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. THE AO IS NOT COMPETENT TO ACCEPT SUCH INVALID DOCUMENT AND IGNORE THE VALID DEPOSITION MADE AT THE TIME OF CROSS - EXAMINATION. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF THE SAID TRANSACTION AND SUBSTITUTE THE 'UNCERTAIN AND CROOKED CORD OF DISCRETION' FOR THE GOLDEN AND STRAIGHT METE WAND OF THE LAW. AS INDICATED EARLIER, THE AO HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE GENUINENESS OR VALIDITY OF THE 'SALE DEED 1 . THE AO MERELY, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SUCHITA VEMURI, ONE OF THE SELLERS, WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY RECORDING HER STATEMENT, MADE ADDITION OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS, THE PROPOSITION THAT THE FORM OF A TRANSACTION SHOU LD PREVAIL OVER ITS SUBSTANCE OR VICE VERSA, IS TOO BROAD AND GENERAL PROPOSITION, TO BE UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION THAT DIRECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IN THE SHAPE OF VALIDLY EXECUTED SALE DEED, IF PITTED AGAINST THE MERE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AS EVIDENCE, THE VALID REGISTERED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CERTAINLY PREVAIL. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF MOTORS AND GENERAL STORES (P) LTD. (1967) 66 ITR 692 (S.C) BY HOLDING THAT, WHERE STATUTORY THE PARTIES HAVE TO REDUCE A CERTAIN TRANSACTION INTO WRITING, IT IS NOT OPEN TO COURT OR ANY PAGE 12 OF 39 AUTHORITY TO PERMIT SUCH FABRICATED EVIDENCE TO BE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES OR TO ENTITLE THEM TO GO BEHIND THE STATEMEN TS MADE IN THE DOCUMENT. INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE UNDER THE ORDINARY LAW. NO GREATER POWER OR AUTHORITY IS VESTED IN THEM, EXCEPT THAT WHICH THE LAW CONFERS. A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 91 TO 94 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT LIMITS THE POWER, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO TH E EXCEPTIONS STATED IN SECTION 91 AND 92 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE REVENUE COULD EITHER ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS AS REPRESENTING GENUINE TRANSACTIONS OR REJECT IT ON VALID AND SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE TENABLE IN LAW. BUT THEY CANNOT, WHILE ACCEPTING THAT IT IS A GENUINE TRANSACTION, REWRITE THE DOCUMENT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PARTIES NAVE IN - TACT AFFECTED, OR GAVE A CONSTRUCTION BY REFERENCE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. SUCHITA VEMURI WAS SCARED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PURCHASER(S), DR. PRADEEP GOVII & HIS WIFE WHO ALWAYS DENIED HAVING SIGNED SUCH ON ARGUMENT. THE PERSON WHO DID NOT FULFILL THE FUI! CYDE OF TESTIMONY BEFORE STATUTORY AUTHORITY, CANNOT FORGET ANY CREDIT OF THE SO CALLED EVIDENCE, (PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL) (SUCHI TA VEMURI} AND MORE OVER WHEN A PERSON WHO IS LAW GRADUATE AND CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION OF HAVING UNACCOUNTED CASH IN POSSESSION & THE AVAILABILITY OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE SHAPE OF COLORED SCANNERS WHICH MAY COPY THE SIGNATURES OF ANY PERSON & PASTE THE SAME ON DOCUMENTS. UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENTS WITHOUT SHOWING THE ORIGINAL HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY HON. APEX COURT THAT SECTION 110 OF EVIDENCE ACT 1372 CONTAINS A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF COMMON LAW, JURISPRU DENCE VIZ, WHERE A PERSON WAS FOUND IN POSSESSING OF ANYTHING, THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT ITS OWNER, WAS ON THAT PERSON, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REAL ISSUE IS TO BE ADDRESSED WHETHER A.O CAN REWRITE THE VALIDLY EXECUTED REGISTERED SALE DEED AND S UBSTITUTE IT WITH THE RECITAL OF PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL & CONSIDERATION STATED THEREIN. CAN THE REVENUE BRUSH ASIDE THE VALID SALE DEED & CRUSHED ASIDE THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS, ORIGINAL OF WHICH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AND MOR E OVER THE PHOTO COPY ALSO HAS NOT BEEN FOUND SEIZED IN SEARCH ACTION U/S 132{1) OF ACT BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE PERSON AFTER A MONTH OF SEIZURE OF CASH WITH HER FOR EXPLAINING THE CASH PAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE OF A TRANSACTION OF SAFE OF PROPERTY ENTERED INTO BY HER FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE OF CASH FOUND IN HER POSSESSION AND WHICH TOO LEGALLY CANNOT BE POSSESSED BY HER IN ENTIRELY AS THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY SCID WAS OWNED BY HER & AND MRS. SONALI MEHRA. FURTHER SHE COMPLETELY FAILED TO ESTABLISH HER TESTIMONY WHEN ON SUMMONING BY HER ASSESSING OFFICER TWICE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PURCHASER OF IMPUGNED PROPERTY, DR. PRADEEP GOVII & HIS WIFE, SHE DID NOT PRESENT HERSELF FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF IHE PURCHASER, THE APPELLANT WHO STWA YS DENIED HAVING EXECUTED SUCH AGREEMENT CONTAINING CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS.45,00,000/ - AND FURTHER FURNISHED AFFIDAVIT BEFORE HIS ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT GIVING ANY CASH CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASING THE IMPUGNEA PROPERTY . THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE HON'BIE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF MOTORS AND GENERA; STORES (P) LTD. (1957) 66 ITR 692 (3.C) BY HOLDING THAT, WHERE STATUTORY THE PARTIES HAVE TO REDUCE A CERTAIN TRANSACTION - INTO WRITING, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO ACCEPTED THE SALE TRANSACTION AS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED, AS GENUINE, BUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION SPECIFIED THEREIN WAS REJECTED AS NON - GENUINE AND, FURTHER, ENHANCED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION, ON THE BASIS OF NON - CREDITABLE EVIDENCE (PHOTOCOPY OF SO CALLED AGREEMENT TO SELL), IGN ORING THE SPECIFIC DENIAL OF THE FACTS, IN THE DEPOSITION MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS. THE AO DISREGARDED THE VALID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE OF REWRITING THE SAFE DEED AND SUBSTI TUTING HIS OWN SALE CONSIDERATION PAGE 13 OF 39 OF THE PROPERTY IN PLACE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION DULY SPECIFIED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF PARAMJIT SINGH V ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSE S, HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY FROM HIS UNCLES, FOR A CONSIDERATION, SPECIFIED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, BUT THE ASSESSES CLAIMED THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAID ON THE BASIS OF ORAL EVIDENCE OF UNCLES. THE INFERENCE OF THE AO, THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN THE SALE DEED WAS ACTUALLY PAID, WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'HLE HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT POINTED OUT THAT ORAL EVIDENCE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS AGAINST DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE U/S 91 AND 92 OF THE 15 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 AND UPHELD THE INFEREN CE OF THE AO. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARAMJIT SINGH V! TO : 323 ITR 583 (P&H) IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 'WE NAVE THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THEY DO NOT WARRANT ACCEPTANCE. THERE IS WEFT KNOWN PRINCIPLE THAT NO ORAL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE ONCE THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SECTIONS 91 AND 92 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (FOR BREVITY 'THE 1372 ACT') IN CORPORATE THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE ACCORDING TO SECTION 91 OF THE ACT WHEN TERMS OF A CONTRACTS, GRANTS OR OTHER DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO THE FORM OF A DOCUMENTS THEN NO EVIDENCE IS PERMISSIBLE TO BE GIVEN IN PROOF OF ANY SUCH TERMS OF S UCH GRANT OR DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY EXCEPT THE OF THE 1872 ACT ONCE THE DOCUMENT IS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE AND PROVED AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 91 THEN NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ORAL AGREEMENT OR STATEMENT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO ANY SUCH INSTRUMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONTRADICTING, VARYING, ADDING TO OR SUBTRACTING FROM ITS TERMS. ACCORDING TO ILLUSTRATION 'B 1 TO SECTION 92 IF THERE IS ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT IN WRITING BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHERE ONE HAS TO PAY THE OTHER A PRINCIPAL S UM BY SPECIFIED DATE THEN THE ORAL AGREEMENT THAT THE MONEY WAS NOR TO BE PAID TILL THE SPECIFIED CONTRADICTING/ VARYING THE TERMS OF A DOCUMENT COULD BE OFFERED. ONCE THE AFORESAID PRINCIPAL IS CLEAR THEN OSTENSIBLE SALE CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED IN THE SAL E DEED DATED 24.9.2002 (A. 7) HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND IT CANNOT BE 16 CONTRADICTED BY ADDUCING ANY ORAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY IN REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE REGIST ERED SALE DEED WAS RECEIVED BY THE VENDORS AND DESERVES TO BE ADDED TO THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSES - APPELLANT.' II. THE HON'BIE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V CHANDNI BHOCHAR (2010) 323 ITR 510 HAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE DISCL OSED IN THE SALE DEED AT RS. 17,06,700/ - CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR RS.30,32,000/ - BY THE AO, WHICH IS ASSESSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THE AO, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PAID RS. 73,25,300/ - , OVER AND SBCVE THE PURCH ASE PRICE DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED AND MADE THE ADDITION AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD POSITIVE EVIDENCE, SUPPORTING THE PRICE ASSESSED BY THE STATE GOVT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THEREFORE, THE PROVISION O F SECTION 50C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF A PURCHASER. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 698 ON UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, CANNOT BE BASED ON THE PAGE 14 OF 39 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION DISCLOS ED IN THE SALE DEED WOULD REMAIN UNREBUTTED, UNLESS DISPLACED BY CREDIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. III THE HON'BFE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V SATINDER KUMAR (2001) 250 ITR 484 CLEARLY HELD THAT AO IS NOT COMPETENT TO MAKE ADDITION IN TH E ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION RECORDED, IN THE SALE DEED. THE HEAD - NOTE OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER 'APPEAL TO HIGH COURT - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - ADDITIONS TO INCOME - INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES - NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE THAT RECORDED IN SALE DEED - TRIBUNAL DELETING ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 - JUSTIFIED - NO QUESTION OF (AW ARISES - INCOME - TAX ACT, 196 1 SS.69, 260A.' IV. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V MOTOR &. GENERAL STORES PVT. LTD. 66 I TR 692 (S.C) HAS SAID THAT 'IT IS, THEREFORE, OBVIOUS THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO DEDUCE THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT FROM TH E PURPORTED INTENTION, BY GOING BEHIND THE DOCUMENT OR TO CONSIDER THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER OR TO ACCEPT IT IN PART AND REJECT II IN PART OR TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT, MERELY FO SUITE PURPOSE OF REVENUE. THE AO DID NET CONDUCT ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REL ATING TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED. HE MERELY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE SELLER. V. IN THE CASE OF V. RAMEHANDRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. V ACIT (2011) 131 ITD] 7. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT WILL NOT AFFECT EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SELF AND POWER CF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT CAN BE AN AFTER - THOUGHT. IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, ORAL EVIDENCES ARE NO - TO BE AS RELEVANT AS WRITTEN EVIDENCES'. ORAL EVIDENCE, NO DOUBT HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE SO FAR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, BUT IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, THE ORAL EVIDENCES HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO WHEN WRITTEN EVIDENCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORAL EVIDENCES CAN BE ACCEPTED ONLY WHEN THEY., ARE CORROBORATED BY THE WRITTEN EVIDENCES. VI. IN THE CASE OF SUB - HASH CHAND V ACI T, CC, PATIALA IN I TA NO. 571 TO 573/CHD/2011, A.Y. 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, VIDE ORDER DATED 23.1 1.2011, THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY UPHELD THE SANCTITY OF THE SALE DEED, PARTICULARLY THE SALE CONSIDERATION SPECIFIED THEREIN BY THE PARTIES, TO THE SALE DEED. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE BENCH FRUSTRATED THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE, TO READ THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE DEED, AS RS.33 LACS, INSTEAD OF RS. 8 LACS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY HIM. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS (THAT STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS VALUED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS.38 LACS AND CUT OF THAT DEEMED CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PLOT/FLAT. HOWEVER, RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: PAGE 15 OF 39 A. THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT BOTH THE PURCHASER AND THE SELLER, CANNOT R EWRITE THE DULY EXECUTED VALID SALE DEED, WITH A VIEW TO SUIT THEIR CONVENIENCE. NEEDLESS TO STATE HERE THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CANNOT BE DISPLACED BY ORAL EVIDENCE, BEING THE BEST EVIDENCE IN ITSELF, AS HELD BY THE HON'BIE SUPREME COURT, VARIOUS HIGH CO URTS AND THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IF DIRECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, LIKE THE VALID SALE DEED FS PERMITTED TO READ DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF ITS CLEAR AND SPECIFIC RECITAL SUCH AS SALE CONSIDERATION VOLUNTARILY AGREED UPON BY THE SELLER A ND THE PURCHASER, THEN CREDIBILITY OF SUCH PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WOULD BE THE FIRST CASUALTY AND SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD WOULD COLLAPSE. B. THE QUESTION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT V SMT. K. C. AGNES & OTHERS (2003) 262 ITR 354 (KERALA), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT SHOWS FIXED PRICE, THERE WILL BE A PRESUMPTION THAT, THAT IS CORRECT PRICE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS RIOT NECESSA RY THAT THE PRICE STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WILL BE THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. SOMETIMES, IT MAY BE HIGHER AND SOMETIMES IT MAY BE LOWER. SOMETIMES, INTENTIONALLY A LESSER VALUE MAY BE SHOWN IN THE SAFE DEED. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED TO BE SO, UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ACTED UPON AND. UNLESS THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS PAID FOR SALE, THE COURT CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS NOT CORRECT., IN THIS CASE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISS ED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GONE A STEP AHEAD AND EVEN CONSIDERED THE EXISTENCE OF BOTH THE AGREEMENT 25 TO SELL AND THE SALE DEED AND UPHELD THE VALIDITY AND SANCTITY OF THE SALE DEED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONL Y ON A BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL SUBMITTED BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI WHICH IS ONLY A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT ARID THE APPELLANT HAS ALWAYS DENIED ABOUT SIGNING OF SUCH DOCUMENT THE MERE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELIABLE UN LESS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS TAKEN ON RECORD. THE SAME VIEW IS TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: - I. CHIRANJI LAL STEEI ROFLING MILLS VS, C)T (1972)34 ITR 0222 II. SVVARAN SRNGH, RAIKOT VS ASSESSEE DATED 08.10,2012, AMRITSAR BENCH III. P. V. JEWELLERS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (1993) 45 TTJ 0541 JAIPUR THE AUDITION MADE BY THE ID ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.45,00,0007 - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT ON :HE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF SO CALLED A GREEMENT IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER THESE FACTS AND LAW AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 3. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 45,00.000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PA ID UNDISCLOSED CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,00,OOP/ - FOR PURCHASING OF SFS FIAT IN SAKET FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI ON THE BASIS OF SOME PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT & RECEIPT SUPPLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI AFTER APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT AT SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT ON 21.02.2011 WHEN SHE WAS CARRYING CASH OF RS. 35.00,000/ - PAGE 16 OF 39 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI SU BSEQUENT TO THE SEIZURE OF CASH AT AIRPORT AFTER APPROXIMATELY A MONTH. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CAUSE OF DELAY OF ONE MONTH. IF SHE HAS IN POSSESSION OF THE DOCUMENT, THEN WHY THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE MONTH. THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY SMT SUCHITA VEMURI IS NOTHING BUT A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER. APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 17.12.2012 BEFORE THE DCIT, CENTRA! CIRLCLE - 13, NEW DELHI (ASSESSING OF FICER OF MS. SUCHITA VEMURI HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE PAYMENT OF CASH OF RS.45,00,000/ - TO MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI AND ALSO REFUSED TO COMMENT ON XEROX COPY OF RECEIPT CUM AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 02.09.2010. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS DU LY GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF HER VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY 21.12.2072 WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL ON 28.12.2012. HOWEVER MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI DID NOT OPPORTUNITY ON 28.12 2012. AGAIN MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE APPELLANT, OR. PRADEEP GOVIL ON 11.01.2013 VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY 08.01.2013. BUT MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI AGAIN DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY. HOWEVER THE APPEL LANT, DR. PRADSEP GOVIL WAS PRESENT ON BOTH DAY AND WAITED FOR SEVERAL HOURS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT, WHEN THE APPELLANT DR. PRADEEP GOVI' WAS SUMMONED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, NEW DELHI AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED, HE DID NOT ACCEPT HAVING PAID ANY CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,00,0007 - FOR BUYING THE SAID PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT THE OFFICERS OF AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF TH E SMT SUCHITA VEMURI SHOWED SO CALLED PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT (WITHOUT SUPPLYING THE DOCUMENT AND STATEMENT OF SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI) SHOWING CASH CONSIDERATION O* RS. 45 ! 00,COO/ - OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1,25,OG,000/ - AS SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE APPE LLANT VEHEMENTLY AND EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT NO SUCH AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE AND THEY DID NOT PAY ANY CASH CONSIDERATION, NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE VENDOR (SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI) RELIED THE CREDIBILITY OF HER STATEMENT AND VERACITY O F DOCUMENTS AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREFORE, NE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,0007 - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OF THE MRS. NEESARN GOVIL (WIFE OF APPELLANT) ADDED RS.22,50,000/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND RS.22,50,0007 - ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN H ER HAND A SHE IS 50% OWNER IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT HAS ADDED RS.45,00,000/ - IN HIS HAND ALSO. THIS ALL PROCESS MADE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.45,00,000/ - TAXABLE NOT TWICE BUT THRICE. 4. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN RELYING ON SHE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY. SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI MECHANICALLY ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, NEW DELHI. WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND INDEPENDENTLY ON THE EVIDENCE(S) AND WITHOUT HER EXAMINATION. ON OATH THUS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - IN THE TOTAL INCOME THE APPELLANT RELIED ON TH E PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI MECHANICALLY. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SUMMON SRNT. SUCHITA VEMURI FOR EXAMINING CREDIBILITY OF HER STATEMENT AND VERACITY OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY HER SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH AND SEIZU RE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON HER, CONDUCTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI EN 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 AT SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT WHEN PAGE 17 OF 39 CASH WORTH 35,00,000/ - WAS SEIZED FROM HER POSSESSION THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE VENDOR (SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI) ARE ONLY SELF SERVING FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ANY SUCH SALE AGREEMENT WAS NEVER EXECUTED AND SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT & HIS WIFE. HER STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) & 131 OF THE ACT WERE CONTRADICTORY AS SHE ASSERTED BEFORE SUB - REGISTRAR NEW DELHI AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS. 1,25,OQ,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TALLIED THE SIGNATURE EN THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH SIGNATURE ON THE SALE DEED, WHEREAS IN THE ERA OF HIGH PROFILE SCANNING OF D OCUMENTS, SCANNING OF SIGNATURES IS NOR DIFFICULT AND THEREFORE THE RELIANCE ON ANY PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR MAKING ADDITION IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE. 5 THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, ALLEGING HAVING PAID CASH CONSIDERATION FOR BUYING SFS .FLAT IN SAKET, NEW DELHI, IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, AS THE PROPERTY WAS PURCH ASED BY THE APPELLANT JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE, DR. NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL WHO IS SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND HER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2250,0007 - ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND FURTHER ADDITION OF RS., 22,50, 0001 - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE HOUSE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,25,00,000/ - JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL VIDE SALE DEED DATED 23RD NOVEMBER, 2010 FROM SMT. SUCHITA VERNURR. LATER ON IT IS ALLEGED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL! CIRCLE 13, NEW DELHI IN RESPECT OF PURCHASING SFS FLAT NO. C - 16/3, SAKET NEW DELHI FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI BY THE HIM JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE DR. NEELARN PRASAD ON 16 TH NOVEMBER 2010 FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,70,00,000/ - OUT OF WHICH RS. 45.00.000/ - ALLEGEDLY HAVING PAID IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIRE JOINTLY. ON FHE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE VENDOR SMT. SUCHITA VERN URI IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON HER, CONDUCTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI ON 21 S ' FEBRUARY2011 A! SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT WHEN CASH WORTH 35,00,0007 - WAS SEIZED FROM HER POSSESSION AND SHE STATE D TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT RS. 45,00,0007 - WAS CASH CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE FOR PURCHASING FLAT IN SAKET, NEW DELHI WHICH' WAS UNDISCLOSED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE LD. ASSESSING MADE ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,0007 - IN THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE APPELLANT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE, BUT THE PROPORTION OF OWNERSHIP IS RIOT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PROPORTION OF OWNERSHIP, IT IS GENERALLY ASSUMED THAT ALL THE OWNER HAS EQUAL RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE THERE ARE TWO JOINT OWNERS NAMELY APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE AND THEREFORE UNDER GENERAL LAW THEY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY I.E. 50%. SO IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PROPE RTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,70,00,000/ - AND 45,00,000/ - HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH, THEN ALSO THE AMOUNT RS. 22,50,000/ - SHOULD BE TREATED HIS SHARE AND NOT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 45 00,0007 - AS THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY 50% RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AND REMAI NING AMOUNT OF RS. 22,50,000/ - SHOULD BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF HIS WIFE SMT. NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL AS SHE S SEPARATELY ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 41(1) HAS ALSO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,50,0 00/ - ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND RS.22,50,0007 - ON PROTECTIVE VIDE ORDER DATED 2S.03 2014 PASSED U/S 143(3)7147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THUS THE REVENUE HAS MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE PAGE 18 OF 39 ASSESSMENT OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI IN WHOSE POSSESSION THE SAI D CASH HAVE BEEN SEIZED AGAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THIRD TIME IN THE 'ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT. ONUS LIES ON THE PERSON IN WHOSE POSSESSION CASH HAS BEEN FOUND IN TERMS OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT, TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH CONCLUSIVELY TO THE SATISFACTION OF HER ASSESSING OFFICER. HER ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE VERACITY OF HER STATEMENT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT SHE DID NOT APPEAR TWICE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE APPELLANT WHO DID NOT ACCEPT HAVING PAID TO HER ANY CASH CONSIDERATION FOR BUYING THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND LAW DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS45,00,0007 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL BEING ARBITRARY MERELY BASED ON SUSPICION WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS ORDER, MAY PLEASE BE REJECTED. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 24.07.2015 IN CONTINUATION OF OUR EARLIER SUBMISSIONS DATED 3RD JULY, 2015, WE WOULD LIK E TO SUBMIT AS UNDER - DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT, THE OFFICERS OF AIR INCOME TAX INTELLIGENCE UNIT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI SHOWED SO CALLED PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT (WITHOUT SUPPLYING THE DOCUMENT AND STATEMENT OF SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI) SHOWING CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,OQ,000/ - OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1,2500,000;' - AS SALE CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 17.12.2012 BEFORE THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCLE - 13, NEW DELHI (ASSESSING OFFICER OF MS. SUCHITA VEMURI) HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE PAYMENT OF CASH OF RS.45,00,000/ - TO MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS DULY GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF MRS. SUCHIIA VEMURI DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF HER VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY 21.12.2012 WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE APPELLANT. DR. PRADEEP GOVIL ON 28 12.2012. HOWEVER MRS. SUCH : TA VEMURI DID NOT AVAIL OPPORTUNITY ON 28.12.2012. AGAIN MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI WAS GIVEN OPPO RTUNITY TO CRESS EXAMINE THE APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL ON 11.01.2013 VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY 09.01.2013. BUT MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI AGAIN CIID NOT AVA.L THE OPPORTUNITY. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL WAS PRESENT ON BOTH DAYS AND WAITED FOR SEVERA L HOURS. THE ASSESS : NG OFFICER, WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINING SMT SUCHITA VEMURI AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT, DR PRADEEP GOVIL TO CROSS - EXAMINE SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI MECHANICALLY RELIED UPON INFORMATION AND HER STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED BY OFFICERS OF AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT AND THE FACT THAT SMT. VEMURI WAS ALSO GIVEN TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL ON 28.12.2018 AND 11.01.2013 BUT SHE DID NOT PRESENT HERSELF FOR AVAILING THE CR OSS EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLANT MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,00, 000/~ AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ACTION OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 45,00,000/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL TO CROSS - EXAMINE MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, THE STATEMENT OF SUCHITA VEMURI LOST ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE DUE TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT SHE DID NOT A PPEAR BEFORE HER ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN SPITE OF GIVING TWO OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HER FOR CROSS - EXAMINING THE APPELLANT, DR. PRADEEP GOVIL WHO DENIED HAVING SIGNED/EXECUTED AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 02.09.2010 IN WHICH THE S ALE CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN AS RS. 1,70,00,000/ - IN PLACE OF CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN REGISTERED SALE DEED WHERE CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN PAGE 19 OF 39 AT RS. 1,25,00.000/ - . OUR CONTENTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - (I) THE STATEMENT OF A WITNESS CANNOT BE MADE USE OF IN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE HIM. IN SANJEEV KURNAR JAIN [2009] 310 ITR 178 (P&H), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE USE OF THE STATEMENTS OF RECORDED FROM SOME WITNESSING WITHOUT G IVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME. THE COURT HELD THAT UP TO THE STAGE OF RECORDING THE STATEMENTS, THERE COULD BE NO INFIRMITY, LEGALITY WOULD ARISE ONLY AFTER THAT WHEN NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESSES . II. NO ADDITION OF ORI - MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SOME VENDER OF LAND IN THE AREA THAT THEY HAD SOLD LAND AT A HIGHER PRICE. THIS EVIDENCE, WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION, WAS NOT CO NSIDERED RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE OF AC1T V. GOVINDBHAI N. PATEL [2013] 215 TAXMAN 575 (GUJ.) III. IN CIT V. INDRAJIT SINGH SUN' [2013] 33 TAXMANN.COM 281 (GUJ), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF SOME PARTIES WITHOUT G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS - EXAMINE THEM. THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. IV. IN JAIKISHAN R. AGARWAL V. ACIT [2000] 66 TTJ 704 (PUNE), IT WAS HELD THAT TNE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND NO ADDITI ON CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT. IN THIS CASE, IN THE COURSE OF CROSS - EXAMINATION, THE VENDOR DENIED THE TRANSACTIONS OF ON MONEY RELATING TO A LAND DEAL THEREBY RETRACTING FROM HIS EARLIER STATEMENT ADMITTING ON MONEY RECEIPT. DESPITE THE RETRACT ION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION. THE ADDITION WAS DELETED ON THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF C T V. SM AGGARWAL [2007] 293 ITR 43 (DELHI) ALSO IS TO SAME EFFECT. (V) IN CASE OF FAILURE TO AF FORD OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION DESPITE REQUESTS, THE COURT MAY REFUSE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN A CASE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS AS A WHOLE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY DIREC TING THE AUTHORITIES TO GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS - EXAMINATION, WHEN REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) HAD BEEN TURNED DOWN. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE HELD TO BE BASED ON SUSPICION AND DELETED. THE CASE WENT UP TO THE HIGH COURT. ON SUCH FACTS, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS CONFIRMED BY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMC SHARE BROKERS LTD. [2C07] 288 ITR 345 (DELHI). THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS, CANNOT BE UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO ARRIVE AT AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION AGAINST IT. 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS THEREOF. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER ASSESSMENT AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS UNDER; I. TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED A PROPERLY AT SAKET ALONGWITH HIS WIFE DR NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL FOR AN APPARENT CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,25 CR AS PER THE SALE DEED. I. THAT AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, SANTA CRUZ AIRPORT, MUMBAI HAD INTERCEPTED SRNT SUCHITA VEMURI ON 21/02/2011 AND DISCOVERED THAT SHE WAS CARRYING CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.35 LAKH WHICH WAS SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. PAGE 20 OF 39 III. THAT SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IN HER STATEMENT EN OATH HAS ADMITTED THE CASH S HE WAS CARRYING IS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY C - 16/3, SFS DDA FLATS, SAKET NEW DELHI THAT SHE HAD SOLD TO SH. PRADEEP GOVI! AND SMT NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL. IV. THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.1.7 CR AS AGAINST SALE DEED SHOWING ONLY RS.1.25 CR. V. THAT SHE HAD SUBMITTED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT SHOWING THE CONSIDERATION AT RS,1.70 CRORE WHICH BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF DR PRADEEP GOVIL ALSO. VI. THAT DR PRADIP GOVIL HAD DE NIED HAVING PAID ANY AMOUNT IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. VII. THAT DR GOVIL HAD ASKED FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF SMT SUCHITA VEMURI. VIII. THAT A.O ALLOWED THE CROSS EXAMINATION, BUT ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, SMT SU CHITA VEMURI FAILED TO TURN UP FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION. HENCE CROSS EXAMINATION COULD NOT TAKE PLACE. 5.2 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAME OF DR PRADIP GOVIL AND HIS WIFE DR NEELAM PRASA D GOVIL. BOTH ARE INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED TO TAX. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ARE USUALLY DONE AT AN UNDERSTATED PRICE FOR VARIETY OF REASONS. THUS , IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT THIS TRANSACTION ALSO CARRIED CASH CHANGING HAND AS PART O F ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION. HERE IN THIS CASE, THE SEIIER HAD PRODUCED A KACHCHA AGREEMENT STATING ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1.70 CR AS AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN SALE DEED AT RS.1.25 CR. THE FACT THAT A PROPERTY CHANGED HAND AND THERE IS A PIECE OF INFORMATION/ EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE SELLER SHOWING AN ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION. WITH THE PREVAILING MARKET PRINCIPLES OF UNDERSTATING SALE CONSIDERATION IN PROPERTY MARKET, THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE WISHED AWAY AS A MERE F IGMENT OF IMAGINATION ALTHOUGH, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE SEILER DID NOT PRODUCE HERSELF FOR CROSS EXAMINATION BUT THE A.O CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR NOT PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION. THE A.O CANNOT FORCE A PERSON TO PRE SENT HERSELF FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HERSELF TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AT ALL. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE A ! SO GIVEN CREDENCE TO' PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY', IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND I N THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS QUITE REASONABLE ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF WHATEVER EVIDENCES AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. WHILE DECIDING ON THE BASIS OF ' PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY' MAXIM, FOLLOWING POINTS IS IMPORTANT: I. THAT A PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND PURCHASED. II. THAT THE SELLER HAS MADE A STATEMENT ON OATH THAT A CASH OF RS.45 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY HER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. III. THAT A CASH OF RS.35 LAKH WAS RECOVERED AND SEIZED IN THE POSSESSION OF THE SELLER. IV. THAT A PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT CUM AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 02/09/2010 SIGNED BETWEEN MRS SUCHITA VEMURI ACTING FOR SELF AND ON BEHALF OF MRS SOOALI MEHRA AS FIRST PARTY AND DR.(MRS.) NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL AND DR PRADEEP GOVIL WAS SIGNED ONA STAMP PAPER SHOWING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RSL ,70,00,OOO/ - WAS PRODUCED BY SMT VERNURI BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THE PAGE 21 OF 39 AGREEMENT TO SELL HAS RECORDED THE 'BAYANA' ALSO OF RS 1 LAKH IN CASH AND RS.6 LAKH BY CHEQUE. ANOTHER RECEIPT OF RS.44 LAKHS RECEIVED BY SRNT VEMURI TOWARDS THE CASH SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ALSO PRODUCED. DATED 16/11/2010, 5.3 IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO QUOTE FROM THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V - DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 8 2 1TR 540, THE SUPREME COURT HELD AS HEREUNDER: 'IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAF ONLY IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM THEY ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. THE SUPREME COURT AGAIN, IN THE JUDGMENT IN SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 HAD REITERATED THE LAW LAID CLOWN IN CIT VS. DURGA P RASAD MORE(1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL ONLY IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AND THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTIT LED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY AND THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE RECE IPT IS NOT OF AN INCOME NATURE BY GIVING AN EXPLANATION; THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT EXPECTED TO PUT BLINKERS AND ACCEPT FT AS IT IS; IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO PROBE FURTHER AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE APPARENT IS REAL OR NOT AND TAKE A DECISION ON SUCH PROBING, IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. HOWEVER, HE SHOULD NOT ACT UNREASONABLY. 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, IT IS QUITE REASONABLE TO ACT ON PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY' AND TAKE THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.1.70 CRORE INSTEAD OF RS.1. 25 CRORE AS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT DR. PRADIP GOVIL HAS ONLY 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND THE BALANCE 50% BELONGS TO DR NEELAM PRASAD GOVIL. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS 22.5 LAKHS IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT IS REDUCED TO RS.22 . 5 LAKH INSTEAD OF RS.45 LAKNS THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS PARTY ALLOWED. 9. THEREFORE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US . THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PROFESSION FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 2 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,22, 2 50/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR THE SCRUTINY AND THE APPELLANT FILED NECESSARY DETAILS/DOCUMENTS/EXPLANATION ETC AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICE R IN RESPECI OF PURCHASING SFS FLAT NO. C - 16/3, SAKET NEW DELHI FROM ONE SMT. SUCHITA PAGE 22 OF 39 VEMURI BY THE HIM JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE DR. NEELAM PRASAD ON 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 FOR 3 TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,70,00,0007 - CUT OF WHICH RS. 45,00,0007 - ALLEGEDLY HAVING PAID IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE JOINTLY ON THE BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE VENDOR SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON HER, CONDUCTED BY AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI ON 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 AT SANTA CRUZ DOMESTIC AIRPORT WHEN CASH WORTH 35,00,0007 - WAS SEIZED FROM HER POSSESSION AND SHE STATED TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT RS. 45,00,0007 - WAS CASH CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND HI S WIFE FOR PURCHASING FLAT IN SAKET, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS UNDISCLOSED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. > SMT SUCHITA VERNURI INITIALLY DECLARED THAT SHE WAS CARRYING RS.10,00,000/ - IN CASH, THEN SHE REVISED IT TO RS.25,00,0007 - AND FINALLY SHE REVISED IT TO RS.35,00,000/ - . SHE REVISED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THREE TIMES & SHIFTED STAND IN HER STATEMENT BEFORE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY INTELLIGENCE UNIT OF IT DEPARTMENT. > REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 23/11/2010 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CO NSIDERATION OF RS.1,25,00,0007 - . > AN AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED ON 16.11.2010 TO SELL THE PROPERTY BEARING FLAT NO C - 16/3, SFS DDA FLAT, SAKET, NEW DELHI FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,25,00.0007 - DULY SIGNED BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI (SELLER) AND OTHE R CO OWNER THROUGH POA SUCHITA VEMURI & MR. PRADEEP GOVIL (APPELLANT, BUYER) ALONG WITH HIS WIFE MRS. NEELARN GOVIL (WIFE OF APPELLANT) AS SHE IS 50% OWNER IN THE SAID PROPERTY. > STATEMENT OF SMT SUCHITA VEMURI TAKEN BY DDIT (!NV.), MUMBAI ON 21.02.2011 IN WHICH SHE ALLEGED HAVING RECEIVED THE SEIZED CASH FROM THE PAGE 23 OF 39 APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE (AS THAT WAS THE BEST WAY FOR HER TO RELIEVE HERSELF FROM TAX LIABILITY. SHE IS LAW GRADUATE AND UNDERSTANDS IMPLICATION OF LIABILITY OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER INCOME TAX). THE PHOTOCOPY OF SO CALLED AGREEMENT SHOWING CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. L 45, 00,000 / - OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1,25,00,000 / - AS SA LE CONSIDERATION WAS SUPPLIED BY HER SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEIZURE OF CASH AT AIRPORT AFTER . THE LEARNED INVESTIGATING OFFICER DID NOT CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CAUSE OF DELAY OF ONE MONTH. IF SHE HAD IN POSSESSION OF THE DOCUMENT, THEN WHY THERE WAS A DE LAY OF ONE MONTH IN MAKING AVAILABLE THE SAME TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY SMT. SUCHITA VERNURI IS NOTHING BUT A SELF SERVING FABRICATED DOCUMENT FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ONE SHOULD APPRECIATE THE TIME LAG BETWEEN TH E ALLEGED CASH TRANSACTION AND SEIZURE OF THE SAME FROM HER POSSESSION WHEREAS THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY .BELONGED TO HER, AND OTHER CO OWNER AND EVEN IF IT IS HYPOIHETICALLY PRESUMED HER STATEMENT IS CORRECT, THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH HER DOES NOT STAND T O LOGIC AS THE OTHER CO OWNER MUST HAVE CLAIMED HER SHARE OF THE SAID CASH ALSO. NEITHER THE INVESTIGATING AUTHORITIES NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF THE APPELLANT APPRECIATED THE CRUCIAL PART OF THE HYPOTHETICAL STORY NARRATED BY THE SAID SUCHTTA VEMURI. M OREOVER, UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ONE PERSON SUCHITA WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED BY HER ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE ADDED AGAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND AGAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE OTHER CO PURCHASER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. IN TH E CASE OF V. RAMCHANDRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. V ACI T (2011) 131 ITD 71 TM), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT WILL NOT AFFECT EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE STATEMENT CAN BE AN AFTER - THOUGHT. IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, ORAL EVIDENCES ARE NOT TO BE AS RELEVANT AS WRITTEN PAGE 24 OF 39 EVIDENCES' 1 . ORAL EVIDENCE, NO DOUBT HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE SO FAR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, BUT IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS , THE ORAL EVIDENCES HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO WHEN WRITTEN EVIDENCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORAL EVIDENCES CAN BE ACCEPTED ONLY WHEN THEY ARE CORROBORATED BY THE WRITTEN EVIDENCES. IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH CHARID V ACI T, CC, PATIAIA IN I TA NO. 571 TO 573/CRID/2011, A.Y. 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2011, THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY UPHELD THE SANCTITY OF THE SALE DEED PARTICULARLY THE SALE CONSIDERATION SPECIFIED THEREIN BY THE PARTIES, TO THE SALE DEED. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE BENCH FRUSTRATED THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE, TO READ THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE DEED, AS RS.38 LACS, INSTEAD OF RS.8 LACS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY HIM. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TNAT STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS VALUED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS.38 LACS AND OUT OF THAT DEEMED CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PLOT/FLAT. A. THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT BOTH THE PURCHASER AND THE SELLER, CANNOT REWRITE THE DULY EXECUTED VALID SALE DEED, WITH A VIEW TO SUIT THEIR CONVENIENCE. NEEDLESS TO STATE HERE THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CANNOT BE DISPLACED BY ORAL EVIDENCE, BEING THE BEST EVIDENCE IN ITSELF, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IF DIRECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, LIKE THE VALID SALE DEED IS PERMITTED TO READ DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF ITS CLEAR AND SPECIFIC RECITAL SUCH AS SALE CONSIDERATION VOLUNTARILY AGREED UPON BY THE SELLER AND THE PURCHASER, THEN CREDIBILITY OF SUCH PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WOULD BE THE FIRST CASUALTY AND SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD WOULD COLLAPSE. PAGE 25 OF 39 B. THE QUESTION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SMT K.C. AGNES & OTHERS (2003) 262 ITR 354 (KERALA), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT SHOWS FIXED PRICE, THERE WILL BE A PRESU MPTION THAT, THAT IS CORRECT PRICE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE PRICE STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WILI BE THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. SOMETIMES, IT MAY BE HIGHER AND SOMETIMES IT MAY BE LOWER. SOMETIMES, INTENTIONALLY A LESSER VALUE MAY BE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED TO BE SO, UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ACTED UPON AND UNLESS THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS PAID FOR SALE, THE COURT CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS CASE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GONE A STEP AHEAD AND EVEN CONSIDERED THE EXISTENCE OF BOTH THE AGREEMENT 25 TO SELL AND THE SALE DEED AND UPHELD THE VALIDITY AND SANCTITY OF THE SALE DEED > THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON A BASIS OF PHOTOCOPY OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL SUBMITTED BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI WHICH IS ONLY A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND THE APPELLANT HAS ALWAYS DENIED ABOUT SIGNING OF SUCH DO CUMENT. THE MERE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELIABLE UNLESS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS TAKEN EN RECORD. THE SAME VIEW IS TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS: - I. CHIRANJI LAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS, CIT (1972)84 ITR 0222 II. S WARAN SINGH, RALKOT VS ASSESSEE DATED 08.10.2012, AMRITSAR BENCH P. V. JEWELLERS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (1S93) 45 TTJ 0541 JAIPUR TRIB. > AGAIN A STATEMENT OF SMT SUCHITA VEMURI HAS BEEN TAKEN BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI ON 20. 04.2011. PAGE 26 OF 39 > THERE WERE SEVERAL INCONSISTENCIES AS WELL AS SHIFTING STANDS IN HER STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND / OR MADE BEFORE THE AIU. I) FEW INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI AT MUMBAI AIRPORT. A) SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI INITIALLY DECLARED THAT SHE WAS CARRYING RUPEES TEN LAKHS IN CASH, THEN SHE REVISED IT TO RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKHS AND FINALLY SHE REVISED IT TO THIRTY FIVE LAKHS. ANYBODY WHO IS CARRYING SUCH A BIG AMOUNT OF MONEY KNOWS ABOUT THE AMOU NT OF MONEY ONE IS CARRYING. HOWEVER, SHE REVISED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THREE TIMES. SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IS WELL EDUCATED (BA, LLB) AND IS WORKING INDEPENDENTLY AS A CONSULTANT WITH REPUTED FIRMS IS EXPECTED TO KNOW THE AMOUNT OF HUGE CASH SHE WAS CARRYING. CLEARLY, SHE WAS KNOWINGLY PROVIDED WRONG AND INCONSISTENT INFORMATION ABOUT CASH TO THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES. THIS PROVES THAT SHE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON TO GIVE TRUTHFUL INFORMATION TO THE AUTHORITIES. B) SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IS L.L.B. AND THEREFORE SHE WAS WELL AWARE OF TAX LIABILITY IN CASE OF SEIZED CASH AND TO SAVE HERSELF FROM TAX LIABILITY, SHE USED FIRST AVAILABLE CHANCE OF ATTRIBUTING IT TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SALE TRANSACTION SHE ENTERED WITH HIM AND HIS WIFE FOR THE FLAT. C) HAVING BEING CAU GHT WITH CASH IN PERSON, SHE HAD CONVENIENTLY ATTRIBUTED IT TO THE APPELLANT WHILE, SHE WOULD HAVE CLAIMED INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS AGAINST THE CASH SO FOUND. D) IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HER ON 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVE D CASH ON 22ND OR 23RD NOVEMBER 2010. SMT VEMURI INITIALLY CHOOSES A DATE OF PURCHASE AS THE DAY OF RECEIVING CASH. IN STATEMENT GIVEN BY HER ON 20TH APRIL 2011, SMT VEMUR SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED PAGE 27 OF 39 CASH ON 16TH NOVEMBER 2010.THESE ARE GROSS DISCREPAN CIES IN TWO STATEMENTS MADE BY HER. THIS AGAIN GOES EN TO SUPPORT THAT SHE COOKED UP A STORY TO SOMEHOW LINK THA CASH FOUND TO THE APPELLANT, AN EASY ALIBI. E) SMT - VEMURI AT ONE PLACE IN THE STATEMENT HAS STATED THAT SHE WAS HARASSED TO ACCEPT CASH FROM THE APPELLANT WHEN ANOTHER BUYER WAS AVAILABLE TO PAY A HIGHER AMOUNT. AS YOU ARE AWARE, SMT. VEMURI IS WELL EDUCATED (B .A., L.L.B) AND IS AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. IT IS INDEED SURPRISING THAT SHE HAS MADE SUCH A CLAIM IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. SHE IS ED UCATED ENOUGH TO KNOW HER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS STATEMENT IS MADE TO EXTRACT SYMPATHY, DIVERT ATTENTION TO THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO HIDE HER ACTUAL SOURCES OF SEIZED CASH. F) THERE IS NO PURCHASE OF ANY FURNITURE COSTI NG SIX LAKHS FROM SMT. VEMURI AS CLAIMED BY HER IN THE STATEMENT. SIX LAKH IS A VERY HUGE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASING FURNITURE. G) ON ONE HAND, SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI STATED THAT SHE HAS AN ANNUAL INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY RS.12,00,000 (TWELVE LAKHS) FROM RETAINER S HIP. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SHE HAS SPENT TEN LAKHS (OUT OF HER CLAIM OF RS 45 LAKHS CASH RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT) ON JEWELRY, CREDIT CARD, FURNITURE, HOLIDAY EXCURSION ETC. IN A SHORT SPAN OF 3 MONTHS. ANY PERSON WITH A LIMITED AN NUAL INCOME (SUCH AS CLAIMED BY HER) CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO SPEND SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT (RS 10 LAKH AS CLAIMED BY HER) WITHIN SUCH A SHORT SPAN OF THREE MONTHS. THIS AGAIN SUPPORTS THE PREMISE THAT SHE HAS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME WHICH FORMS THE BASIS O F THE CASH FOUND ON HER AT THE AIRPORT. > SMT. VEMURI HAS, IN HER STATEMENT DATED 21.02.2011 GIVEN UNDER OATH, STATED THAT SHE HAD POOR RNENTAI HEALTH DUE TO DEMISE OF HER HUSBAND. THIS INDEED RAISES A DEEPER ISSUE: HOW CAN STATUTORY AUTHORITIES, SUCH AS THE PAGE 28 OF 39 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RELY ON THE S TATEMENTS OF A PERSON OF POOR MENTAL! HEALTH TO PROCEED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND HIS V/IFE LEADING TO ALL ATTENDANT TROUBLES OF EXPENDING TIME AND ENERGY ON MY PART. > STATEMENT OF MR. PRADEEP GOVIL HAS AISO BEEN TAKEN BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCIE - 13, J HANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI ON 17.12.2012 IN WHICH HE STRICTLY DENIED ANY CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASING THE SAID PROPERTY AND VEHEMENTLY AND EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT NO SUCH A AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE. > THE ASSESSING OFFICER TALLIED THE SIGNATUR E ON THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH SIGNATURE ON THE SALE DEED, WHEREAS IN THE ERA OF HIGH PROFILE SCANNING OF DOCUMENTS, SCANNING OF SIGNATURES IS NOT DIFFICULT. > THE APPELLANT HAS SUMMED TWICE BY DC/7', CENTRAL CERCLE - 13, DELHI ON 28.12.2013 AND 11.01.2013, TO ALLOW MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE APPELLANT BUT MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI DID NOT AVAIL THESE OPPORTUNITIES. THE APPELLANT APPEARED ON THE BOTH DATES WHEREAS MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI DID NOT AVAIL THESE OPPORTUNITIES BUT THE APPELLANT WAI TED FOR SEVERAL HOURS FOR MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI BUT SHE DID NOT APPEAR. > ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND STATEMENT OF MR. PRADEEP GOVII, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF IVFRS. SUCHITA VEMURI DID NOT ACCEPT HER CONTENTIOO AND ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT IN HER INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. > THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SUMMONED MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI AND HER CO OWNER MRS. SONALR M EHRA FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. ALL THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ASSESSING OFFICER OF MRS= SUCHITA VEMURI PAGE 29 OF 39 WHO HIMSELF WAS NO CONVINCED WITH HER STATEMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANCI OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMUR I > THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT BEING QUASI JUDICIAL OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED ALL FACTS, STATEMENTS INDEPENDENTLY WHEREAS HE EVEN DID NOT RECORD THE STATEMENT OF S UCHITRA VIMURI AND EVEN DID NOT GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION TO TH E APPELLANT. IF REVENUE IS PERMITTED TO PROCEED SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIF SERVING STATEMENT OF SOME PERSON, WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE AFFECTED ASSESSES, THEN, IT WILL CREATE HAVOC AND SHALL BE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCERTIENTS: - M/SANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. C.I.T. EXCISE, (CIVIL .APPEAL HO. 4228/2006, DATE OF ORDER: 02/09/2015) (SUPREME COURT) IN THE AFORESAID CASE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT 'ACCORDI NG TO US, NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESS E E TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY IN AS MUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSES WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TVSO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPU TED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS - EXAMINE, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AFORESAID PLEA IS NOT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY. AS FAR AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT PAGE 30 OF 39 REJECTION OF THIS PLEA I S TOTALLY UNTENABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE SAID DEALERS COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT THEMSELVES TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THEIR EX - FACTORY PRICES REMAIN STATIC. IT WAS NOT FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE GUESS WORK AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE APPELLANT WANTED TO CROSS - EXAMINE THOSE DEALERS AND WHAT EXTRACTION THE APPELLANT WANTED FROM THEM.' KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SC) (1980) 125 ITR 0713 INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES CHARGEABILITY - T, AN EMPLOYEE OF MADRAS OFFICE OF ASSESSEE MAKING A TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,07,350 TO N, AN EMPLOYEE OF ASSESSEE IN BOMBAY OFFICE ON ENQUIRY MADE BY ITO FROM MADRAS BANK, MANAGER OF BANK IN FORMING ITO THAT TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER OF RS. 1,07,350 SENT BY ASSESSEE FROM MADRAS WAS RECEIVED BY BANK AT BOMBAY AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO N ITO TREATING THE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE NOT JUSTIFIED BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO ASSESSEE LETTERS OF MANAGER, IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME BEING SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT BE USED AGAINST ASSESSEE MANAGER ALSO NOT EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT B ELONGED TO ASSESSEE > THE STATEMENT OF A WITNESS CANNOT BE MADE USE OF IN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE HIM. IN SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN [2009] 310 ITR 178 (P&H), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE USE OF THE STATEMENTS OF RECORDED FROM SOME WITNESSING WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME. THE COURT HELD THAT UP TO THE STAGE OF RECORDING THE STATEMENTS, THERE COULD BE NO INFIRMITY. ILLEGALITY WOULD PAGE 31 OF 39 ARISE ONLY AFTER THAT WHEN NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESSES. > THE EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTIES. ITO V. PARESH ARVIRID GANDHI (MUM.) TRIB) (ITA NO.5706/WI UM/2013 DATED 13.02.2015) > IN CIT V. INDRAJIT SINGH SURI [2013] 33 TAXRNANN.COM 281 (GUJ), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF SOME PARTIES WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS - EXAMINE THEM. THE ADDITIONS W ERE DELETED. > IN CASE OF FAILURE TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION, THE COURT MAY REFUSE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN A CASE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS AS A WHOLE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE W OULD BE SERVED BY DIRECTING THE AUTHORITIES TO GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS - EXAMINATION, WHEN REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) HAD BEEN TURNED DOWN. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE HELD TO BE BASED ON SUSPICION AND DELETED. THE CASE WENT UP TO THE HIGH COURT,! ON SUCH FACTS, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS CONFIRMED BY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMC SHARE BROKERS LTD. [2007] 288 ITR 345 (DELHI). THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS, CANNOT BE UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO ARRIVE AT AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION AGAINST IT. > DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS REPLIES IN WHICH HE EMPHATICALLY SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT PAID ANY CASH FROM M RS. SUCHITA VERNURI. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 14TH MARCH, 2014 IN WHICH HE HAS STATED THAT NO CASH HAS BEEN PAID TO SMT. PAGE 32 OF 39 SUCHITA VEMURI FOR PURCHASE THE SAID HOUSE. AIL THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,25,00,OOO/ - HAS BAERI MADE THROUGH BANKING C HANNELS. MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI HAS ASSERTED BEFORE SUB - REGISTRAR, A STATUTORY AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS. 1,25,00,000/ - AND CHANGED HIS STATEMENTS MANY TIMES BEFORE THE AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT, MUMBAI ABOUT AMOUNT OF CASH HOLDING. SHE IS L.L.B AND WELL AWARE OF TAX LIABILITY THEREFORE SHE KNOWS HOW TO MOLD FACTS FOR HER OWN BENEFITS. HOW CAN DEPARTMENT BELIEVE ON THAT PERSON WHO HAS ALREADY TOLD LIE BEFORE ONE STATUTORY AUTHORITY I.E. SUB REGISTRAR AND AIU, MUMBAI. > THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SMT SUCHITA VEMURS HAS NOT ACCEPTED HER CONTENTION AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN HER HAND AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE ASSESSING OF THE MRS. NEEIAM GOVLL (WIFE OF APPELLANT) ADDED RS.22,50, ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND RS.22,50,000/ - ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN HER HAND AS SHE IS 50% OWNER IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE APPELLANT HAS ADDED RS.45,00,000/ - IN HIS HAND ALSO. THIS ALL PROCESS MADE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.45,GO,OOG/ - TAXABLE NOT TWICE BUT THRICE. > ON APPEAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE CIT(A) - 20, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION UP TO RS. 22,50,000/ - BUT UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND WITHOUT ADJUDICATING EACH GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT PR OPERLY. > THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) ON THE SAME PLEA AND SUSPICION THAT PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ARE USUALLY DONE AT AN UNDERSTATED PRICE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE IGNORED, MADE THE ADDITION OF R S.22,50,0007 - HYPOTHETICALLY WITHOUT GIVING ANY SUBSTANTIAL PROOF OF EVIDENCE PAGE 33 OF 39 > THE HONORABLE CIT (A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI IS LIB AND THEREFORE SHE WAS WELL AWARE OF TAX. SHE KNEW HUMAN BEHAVIOR ABOUT THE UNDERSTATED PRICE DEALING IN PROPERTY AND TAX IMPLICATION THEREON THEREFORE SHE PROVIDED A SELF SERVING FABRICATED DOCUMENT FOR EXPLAINING HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SHE HAD NOTHING TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION THAT'S WHY SHE DID NOT APPEAR FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, BEFORE THE DCIT, C ENTRAL CERCLE - 13, DELHI ON 28.12.2013 AND 11.01.2013 WHEREAS APPELLANT WAITED THERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS, > THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF CONCEPT OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY AND REFERRING THE JUDGMENT OF CIT VS, DURGA PRASAD 82 ITR 540 AND SUMATI DAYA ! VS. CST 214 STR 801 UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.22,50,000/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE IN BOTH T JUDGEMENT THERE WERE NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED EXCEPT A NARRATED STORY, WHICH WAS PUTTED FORWARD BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY BY BOTH APPELLANT TO CONCE AL INCOME AND SAVE TAX A& DONE BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI IN HER CASE. > HAVING REGARD TO THE STATEMENT OF THE MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI, IT CAN BE PRIMA FACIA CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AND NOT GENUINE IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMUR I FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - SHE WAS KNOWINGLY PROVIDED WRONG AND INCONSISTENT INFORMATION ABOUT CASH TO THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES AND REVISED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THREE TIMES. * SMT. SUCHITA VEMURI IS L.L.B. AND THEREFORE SHE WAS WELL AWARE OF TAX LIABILITY IN CASE OF SEIZED CASH AND TO SAVE HERSELF FROM TAX LIABILITY AS SHE CLAIMED INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS AGAINST THE CASH SO FOUND, SHE USED FIRST AVAILABLE CHANCE OF ATTRIBUTING IT TO THE SALE TRANSACTION SHE ENTERED WITH APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE FOR TH E FLAT. PAGE 34 OF 39 THE PHOTOCOPY OF SO CALLED AGREEMENT SHOWING CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,00,0007 - OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1,25,00,0007 - AS SALE CONSIDERATION WAS SUPPLIED BY HER SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEIZURE OF CASH AT AIRPORT AFTER APPROXIMATELY A MONTH. THE SAID DOC UMENT WERE NOT FOUND IN NORMAL COURSE BY THE REVENUE IN CONSEQUENCES TO SEARCH. THE SELF SERVING DOCUMENT WAS PROVIDED ONLY BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI TO SAVE HER FROM TAX IMPLICATION. IF IT IS HYPOTHETICALLY PRESUMED HER STATEMENT IS CORRECT, THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH HER DOES NOT STAND TO LOGIC AS IMPUGNED PROPERTY BELONGED TO HER AND OTHER CO OWNER AND THE OTHER CO OWNER MUST HAVE CLAIMED HER SHARE OF THE SAID CASH ALSO. MRS, SUCHITA VEMURI HAS ASSERTED BEFORE SUB - REGISTRAR, A STATUTORY AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS. 1,25, 00 000/ - AND CHANGED HIS STATEMENTS MANY TIMES BEFORE THE AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT, MUMBAI ABOUT AMOUNT OF CASH HOLDING. SHE IS L.L.B AND WELL AWARE OF TAX LIABILITY THEREFORE SHE KN OWS HOW TO MOLD FACTS FOR HER OWN BENEFITS. THE VERACITY OF A REGISTERED DOCUMENT IS MUCH MORE THAN A UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT. AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE PROPERTY WERE SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,25,00,OOO/ - WHEREAS THE SELF SERVING DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY MRS SUCHITA VEMURI THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI DID NOT ACCEPTED SELF EXPLAINING STATEMENT AND SELF SERVING DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI AND ADDED RS.45,00,000/ - IN HER INCOME. > IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION ADDITION OF RS.22,50,000/ - UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 20 ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY WHICH ACTUALLY LIES IN THE CASE OF MRS. SUCHITA VEMURI NOT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IS LIABLE TO PAGE 35 OF 39 BE DELETED AS THE S AME IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL BEING ARBITRARY MERELY BASED ON SUSPICION WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO SUPPORT. 10. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - A. IN THE ABOVE CASE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMI TTED THAT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED: YOGENDRAKUMAR GUPTA VS ITO (51 TAXMANN.COM 383) (SQ/C2014] 227 TAXMAN 374 (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHERE SUBSEQUENT TO COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT, ASSESSING OFFICER, ON BASIS OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN CASE OF ANOTHER PERSON, CAME TO KNOW THAT LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE WITH A FINANCE COMPANY WERE BOGUS AS SAID COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, IT BEING A FRESH INFORMATI ON, HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN CASE OF ASSESSEE. RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD, V. ITO AND OTHERS.[236 ITR 34] (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID IT HAS ONLY TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE /CASE. THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE 3 ACIT.VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD [2007] 161 TAXMAN 316 (SC)/F20071 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SO LONG AS THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE T O INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 AND FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS UNDER SECTION 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) HAS BEEN ISSUED. ADANI EXPORTS V. DC1T[1 999] 240 ITR 224 (GUJ) WAS DISTINGUISHED 4. AMSA INDIA PVT LTD VS CIT [2017 - TIOL - 603 - HC - DEL - IT1 (DELHI) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT CAN REASSESS THE RETURNS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IF THE AO H AS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE FACTS HAVE A PROXIMATE LINK WITH THE ASSESSEE'S CONCEALED INCOME. THE ABOVE CASE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS_MAY INDLY BE CONSIDERED WITH REGARD TO ADDITION U/S 69C: 1. R. MALLIKA VS CIT [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 117 (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) M WHERE HON BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED SLP AGAINST MADRAS HIGH COURT'S RULING THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED BURDEN AS REGARDS SOURCE FROM WHJCFI INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE, INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY WAS AN UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE. PAGE 36 OF 39 CIT VS R. MALLIKA [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 231 (MADRAS)/[2013] 219 TAXMAN 244 (MADRAS) (COPY ENCLOSED) '' I ; . \ \ WHERE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR RS. 22 LAKHS AND SHE HAD NOT DISCHARGED BURDEN AS REGARDS SOURCE FROM WHICH INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE, INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY WAS AN ! UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 2. KAHAN UDVOG VS CIT [20131 38 TAXMANN.COM 261(DELHI)/[2013] 219 TAXMAN ' 23 (DEL.HIMMAG.) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN PURPOSE AND NATURE OF EXPENDITUR E DISCLOSED IN SEARCH AND SAME WAS ALSO NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69C. - S. RUDRAMUNIYAPPA VS CIT (75 TAXMANN.COM 241) (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED SLP ON GROUND OF DELAY AGAINST ORDER OF HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND THAT I, THERE WAS NO UNACCOUNTED SALE AS INDICATED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS, ADDITION MADE ON BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS JUSTIFIED , HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF IT.ACT: 1. KISHORE KUMAR VS CIT (62 TAXMANN.COM 215, 234 TAXRNAN 771) (COPY ENCLOSED) < !; !; ' L WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED SLP AGAINST H IGH COURT'S ORDER WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD STATED IN SWORN STATEMENT DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE ABOUT HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, TAX WAS TO BE LEVIED ON BASIS OF ADMISSION WITHOUT SCRUTINIZING DOCUMENTS. B KISHORE KUMAR VS CIT (52 TAXMANN.COM 449) MADRAS HIGH COURT CONFIRMED (COPY ENCLOSED) 2. BHAGIRATH AGGARWAL VS CIT (31 TAXMANN.COM 274, 215 TAXMAN 229. 351 ITR 143) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AN ADDITION IN ASSESSEE'S INCOME R ELYING ON STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS CANNOT BE DELETED WITHOUT PROVING STATEMENTS TO BE INCORRECT 3 - RAJ HANS TOWERS FP.) LTD. VS CIT (56 TAXMANN.COM 67. 230 TAXMAN 567, 373 ITR 9) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD T HAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING SURRENDERED AMOUNT BEING NOT BONA FIDE AND IT WAS ALSO NOT BORNE OUT IN ANY CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ADDITIONS SO MADE AFTER ADJUSTING EXPENDITURE WERE JUSTIFI ED. 3 - S. RUDRAMUNIYAPPA VS CIT (75 TAXMANN.COM 241) (SC) (COPY ENCLOSED) WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED SLP ON GROUND OF DELAY AGAINST ORDER OF HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND THAT I, THERE WAS N O UNACCOUNTED SALE AS INDICATED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS, ADDITION MADE ON BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS JUSTIFIED C. LTN