DCIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Singla Enclave Developers (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 66/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 6621514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Question of law; Fair market value; Onus to prove
• Section: 92; 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 66 & 67/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE DCIT, CC-III, V M/S SINGLA ENCLAVE LUDHIANA. DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., 3325, PHASE-II, URBAN ESTATE, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. PAN: AAICS0-9626D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT : SHRI SATISH KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE REVENUE FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE SEPARAT E ORDER, EACH DATED 18.11.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS COMMON IN NATURE AND THE SAME IS BEING ADJUDICATED BY A SINGL E CONSOLIDATED ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. HOWEVER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IN ITA NO. 66/CHD/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS O F THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,40,000/- . 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.30,4 0,000/- BY HOLDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS OF MORTGAGE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE S ALE CONSIDERATION AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THUS COMPLET ELY IGNORING THE FACTS REGARDING RATE OF LAND MENTIONED IN SUCH DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF T HE COMPANY. 3. THE APPE LLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSE D OFF. 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING RE AL ESTATE PROJECTS, LIKE RESIDENTIAL COLONIES ETC. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE SOLD 8 SCF, MEASURING 100 SQ.YDS. EACH, @ 1200 PER SQ.YD. THE AO, CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CONTE NTS, AS RECORDED AT PAGES 28 TO 31 OF ANNEXURE-I, FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS, FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NAMELY M/S SINGLA ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS P.LTD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MORTGAG ED TO PUDA 4 SCF, MEASURING 100 SQ.YD. EACH (TOTAL 400 SQ .YDS) AT VILLAGE DALON, DISTT. LUDHIANA, FOR RS.20 LACS, MEN TIONING THE SAME AS 'FAIR MARKET VALUE' OF THE PROPERTY, AS ON 17.08.2006. THE AO, RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER DATED 30.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAS SH OWN THE 'FAIR MARKET VALUE' OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.20 LACS O N 17.08.2006. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY I.E. PUDA ACCEPTED THE SAID 'FAIR MARKET VALUE' OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AO, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE MARKET 3 VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE MORE THAN THE VALUE ON 17.8.2006 AND CONSEQUENTLY, VIDE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY DATED, 24.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SALE DEED OF ALL THE SALES OF SCFS MADE DUR ING THE YEAR, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AT RS.5000/- PER SQ.YD. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE AO ON 29.12.2010 AS UND ER; THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ALL THE SCFS ATLEAST AT THE CIRCL E RATE FIXED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY OR AT THE HIGHER RATE WHIC H HAS BEEN FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE STAMP DUTY FE E. CONSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF 'FAIR MARKET VALUE' R ECORDED AT PAGES 28 TO 31, THE AO COMPUTED THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF 8 SCFS, MEASURING 100 SQ.YD. EACH ( I.E. TOTAL 800 SQ .YD. @ RS.1200/- PER SQ.YD. I.E. RS.9,60,000/-), AS PER RE GISTRATION DEED FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL SALES @ 5000/- PER SQ. YD. WORKS OUT TO RS.40 LACS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS.30,40,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AS OVER AND ABOVE THE MONEY RECEIVED ON T HE SALE OF SCF BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 4. THE AO, FOLLOWED THE SAME LINE OF REASONING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ASSESSEE'S CASE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,80,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE PROPER TY SOLD DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE. THUS, THE AO, I N BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS MADE THE ADDITION ON IDENTICAL GRO UNDS. LD. CIT(A), ON APPRECIATION OF VARIOUS CASE-LAWS CI TED BY THE APPELLANT, ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEAL S, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 5. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS MARSHALLED OUT BY THE CIT( A), INCLUDING CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AO AND THE A SSESSEE APPELLANT, RECORDED HIS IDENTICAL FINDINGS, IN BOTH THE APPEALS AS UNDER : 10. THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A MORTGAGE DOCUME NT WHEREIN (SHE ASSESSEE HAD MORTGAGED FOUR SCFS IN ORDER TO MEET T HE GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS OF PUDA. THE SCFS WERE PROJECTED TO BE HAVING A MARKET VALUE OF RS. 5000/- PER SQUARE YARD AND ON THE BASIS OF T HIS THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VALUE OF ALL OTHER SCFS WOULD A LSO BE @ RS. 5000/- PER SQUARE YARD AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDER ST ATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION BY SELLING THE SAME @ RS. 1200/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE COMPANY GOT APPROVAL OF COLONY FROM PUDA AND IT WAS ONE OF THEIR CONDITIONS THAT THE AP PELLANT WILL MORTGAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE GOVT. IMMOVABLE PRO PERTY EQUIVALENT TO RS. 2 LAC GROSS ACRE AS A SECURITY FOR EXECUTION OF INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT WORKS. IT HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT TH E VALUATION OF SCFS MORTGAGED WITH PUDA WAS ONLY INTENDED TO MEET THE S ECURITY AMOUNT .REQUIREMENTS OF PUDA AND HAD NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ACTUAL SALEABLE PRICE OF THE SCFS. IT WAS THUS CLAIMED THA T THE HIGHER VALUATION WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ACTUAL SALE HAD TAKEN PLACE @ RS. 5,000/- PER SQUARE YARD. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON TH E FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS CASE:- 1. 'ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X VS. JYOTI WOOLLEN MILLS DECIDED BY HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI X D' BENCH REPORTED IN (2009) 125 TTJ (DEL) 8 10, HELD:- ASSESSEE HAVING SHOWN HIGHER STOCK FOR OBTAINING CR EDIT FACILITY FROM THE BANK AGAINST HYPOTHECATION OF STOCK, AND T HERE BEING NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS IN FACT IN POSSESSION OF HIGHER QUANTITY OF STOCK AS DECLARED TO THE BANK, ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON MERE COMPARISON OF THE STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK AND THE ONE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. N.SWAMY DECIDED BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT REPORTED IN (2000) 241 ITR 363, H ELD :- THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS TO ASSESSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ON THE SIS OF THE MATERIAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 5 ASSESSMENT AND ORDINARILY NOT ON THE BASIS OF T HE STATEMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE GIVEN TO THE THIRD PARTY LESS THERE IS MATERIAL TO CORROBORATE THAT STATEMENT OF THE 'ASSESSEE GIVEN TO A THIRD PARTY, EVEN IF IT BE A BANK. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD MADE SUCH A STATEMENT BY ITSELF CANNOT BE TREATED AS HAVING RES ULTED IN AN IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. T HE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE. THAT BURDEN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DISCHARGED BY MERELY REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO A THIRD PARTY IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSACTION WHICH WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT AND MAKING T HAT THE SOLE FOUNDATION FOR A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY SU PPRESSED HIS INCOME. THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE INCO ME SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IS WITHIN THE TAXING PROVISIONS AND THERE WAS IN FACT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE STOCK IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER THOUGHT THAT THE FIGURES RELATING TO THE VA LUE OF THE STOCKS AS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A DECLARATION TO THE BANK FROM W HICH IT HAD OBTAINED OVERDRAFT FACILITIES AND IN ITS DECLARATIO N VALUED THE STOCK AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THAT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPUTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE A S RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND THAT FOUND IN THE DECLARATION TO THE BANK AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD C ONTENDED THAT THE VALUE OF THE STOCKS AS STATED BY HIM IN THE DECLARATION G IVEN TO THE BANK WAS INFLATED, THAT HE HAD NOT SUPPRESSED THE VALUE OF T HE STOCK, AND THAT THERE WAS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE APPEALED, REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITION FROM RS.34,070 TO RS.26,000. ON APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION. ON A REFERENCE : HEL D, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE T RIBUNAL HAD EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION AND THE QUESTION DECIDED BY IT WAS A Q UESTION OF FACT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. PARIMISETTI SEETHARAMAMMA V. C.I.T. DECIDED BY H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC). 4. ASHOK KUMAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER DECIDED BY HO N'BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR REPORTED IN (2006) 201 CTR (J&K) 178, HELD :- ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN CLOSING STOCK DECLARED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK AS STOCK POSI TION SHOWN TO THE BANK 6 WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND INFLATED VALUE WAS SHOWN TO AVAIL MORE CREDIT FROM BANK. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S SANTOSH BOX F ACTORY PVT.LTD. DECIDED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT REPORTED IN (2011) 44 I.T.REPS. 473 (P&H),HELD :- THE STOCK STA TEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK MAY BE MATERIAL WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED TO B E GONE INTO DURING ASSESSMENT BUT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE. WHE THER IN A GIVEN CASE THE STOCK STATEMENT COULD BE ACCEPTED AS BASIS FOR COMPUTING THE VALUE OF THE STOCK DEPENDS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CA SE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND VALUE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS CORRECT , THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE BAR TO SUCH EXPLANATION BEING ACCEPTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE RECORDED A CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO ,BE PERVERSE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARI SES. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SIDHU RICE AND GENERAL MILLS DECIDED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T REPORTED IN (2006) 281 ITR 428 (P&H), HELD :- DISMISSING THE AP PEAL, THAT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS SHOWED THAT EXCEPT FOR THE PHOT OCOPY OF THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT T HE ASSESSEE POSSESSED STOCKS AS REFLECTED IN THE SAID STATEMENT AS AGAINST THE STOCKS DEPICTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. IT WAS ALSO F OUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE AND HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE BASIS O F THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL TOOK A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE. THUS, THERE WAS TO BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS. 7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ARROW EXIM (P) LT D. DECIDED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT REPORTED IN ((2010) 230 CTR (GUJ) 293, HELD :-TRIBUNAL HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STOCK AS PER B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTE D TO THE BANK IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND IS SUPPORTED BY 7 VOUCHERS, ETC. AND DELETED THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION, NO INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED. 8. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. VEERDIP R OLLERS P. LTD. DECIDED BY HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT REPORTED IN (2 010) 323 ITR 341 (GUJ), HELD :-ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOS ING STOCK FURNISHED IN STATEMENT TO THE BANK FOR AVAILING OF CREDIT FACI LITY AND THAT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FURNISHED BEFORE THE INCOME TA X AUTHORITIES. THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT TH E STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK WAS ON ESTIMA TE BASIS AND THE VALUE OF THE STOCK WAS INFLATED TO AVAIL OF GREATE R CREDIT FROM THE BANK AND THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR M AKING ANY ADDITION ON THE ALLEGATION OF INFLATED STOCK SHOWN TO THE BA NK. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD C ONSIDERED WHETHER THE VALUE OF STOCK SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W AS GENUINE OR NOT AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT THE FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL WAS PERVERSE. (THE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SPEC IAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THIS JUDGEMENT; SE E (2008) 307 ITR (ST.). 9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KHAN & SIROHI STEEL ROLLING MILLS DECIDED BY HON'BLE HIGH C OURT OF ALLAHABAD REPORTED IN (2006) 200 CTR (ALL)595, HELD :- TRIBUN AL WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT I N VIEW OF THE PREVAILING PRACTICE, THE VALUE OF STOCK HYPOTHECATE D TO BANK WAS INFLATED TO AVAIL OF MORE OVERDRAFT FACILITIES AND DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STOCK SHOWN TO BAN K AND STOCK SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. 10. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD RAIKA DECIDED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH REPORTED IN (2010) 232 CTR (CHHATTISGARH) 101, HELD :- CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HA S SHOWN HIGHER STOCK TO THE BANK BY SHOWING LESSER SALES AND RECOR DED A FINDING OF FACT THAT NO EXCESS STOCK WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AS SESSEE AND DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69B, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES.' 8 11. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO HAS MERELY RELIED UPON THE VALUATION OF SCFS AS PLEDGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PUDA AND HAS NOT GONE BEYOND THIS POINT TO CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL SALE OF SCFS @ RS. 5000/- PER SQUARE YARD AS AGAINST RS. 1200/- PER SQUARE YARD RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEORGE HANDERSON & COMPANY LI MITED 66 ITR 622 HAS OBSERVED THAT FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERA TION FOR WHICH THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS MADE APPEARING IN SECTION 12B OF INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 (CORRESPONDING TO THE PRESENT SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1-961), DOES NOT MEAN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET TRANSFERRED BUT THE PRICE BARGAINED FOR BY THE PARTIES TO THE S ALE, ETC. THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS WHAT THE TRANSFEROR RECEIVES IN LIEU OF THE ASSET HE PARTS WITH, VIZ., MONEY OR MONEYS WORTH. THE EXPRESSION FULL CONSIDERATION IN THE MAIN PART OF THE SECTION 12B(2) CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING A REFERENCE TO THE MARKE T VALUE OF THE ASSET TRANSFERRED. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. P. SURYANARAINA 88 ITR 321 HELD THAT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN THE SAID SECTION MEANT ONLY THE ACTUAL VALUE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE MARKET VALUE MAY ALSO BE TAKEN IN PLACE OF, FULL VA LUE OF CONSIDERATION ONLY IN THE EVENT OF THE CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTERED DOCUME NT BEING LESS THAN THE VALUE FIXED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COL LECTION OF STAMP DUTY. IT MEANS THAT THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS EVIDE NCED BY THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE VALUE MEANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY AS PER SECTION 50C. THIS SECTION HAS BEEN INTRODUCE D BY FINANCE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 1.4.2003 AND HAS BEEN TITLED 'SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES' WHICH MEANS THAT THE FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED ONLY IF THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE FULFILLED. APART FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS REFLECTED IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT CAN BE SUBSTIT UTED BY A HIGHER FIGURE IF THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT AMOUNT OVER A ND ABOVE THE ONE RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS HAD PASSED ON FROM THE BUY ER TO THE SELLER. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THEREFORE WHETHER THE DOCUM ENT RELIED UPON BY THE AO CAN BE TAKEN TO BE EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO REJECT THE BO OK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSTITUTE THE SALES PRICE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IT HA S BEEN HELD IN CATENA OF JUDGEMENTS AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE AR THAT THE VALUAT ION OF STOCKS CAN NOT BE A RELIABLE BASIS TO MAKE AN ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY IN POSSESSION OF STOCKS AS PER VALUATION SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. THE VIEW OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE IS CLEARLY D ETAILED IN THE JUDGEMENT IN 9 THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SIDHU RIC E AND GENERAL MILLS DECIDED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH CO URT REPORTED IN (2006) 281 ITR 428 (P&H). THE HON'BLE COURT HELD:- 'THAT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS SHOWED THAT EXCEPT FO R THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE POSSESSED STOCKS AS REFLECTED IN THE AID STATEMENT AS AGAINST THE S TOCKS DEPICTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL TOOK A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SH OWN TO BE PERVERSE. THUS, THERE WAS TO BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS.' THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE VALUATION OF SC FS WAS ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUDA SEEMS PROBABLE AS BY DOING SO FEWER NUMBER OF SCFS HAD TO BE MORTGAGED. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN DOING SO. MAY INVITE SUITABLE ACTION BY PUDA AUTHORITIES IN TERMS OF MISREPRESENTATION, BUT THE SAME CAN NOT BE TAKEN TO BE THE VALUE OF THE SCFS SO AS TO REJECT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED DEEDS WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAMP DUTY REGULATI ON. THIS MEANS THAT THE DOCUMENT OF MORTGAGE CAN NOT BE TAKEN TO BE SUF FICIENT EVIDENCE SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELET ED. 6. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'DR' REFERRED TO PARA 2 AT PAGE 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT ORDER AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), AS R ECORDED AT PAGE 18 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. LD. 'DR' PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COIMBATORE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. LTD. V CIT 95 ITR 375 (MAD). LD. 'DR' FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS SHOWN THE ' FAIR MARKET VALUE' OF THE PROPERTY AT HIGHER RATE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE VALUE RECORDED IN THE MORTGAGE DEED, ENTER ED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH PUDA. THEREFORE, THE 10 SUB-STANDARD MORALITY OF THE ASSESSEE, NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO BE UPHELD. 7. LD. 'AR', ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN BOTH THE CA SES. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED PAPER BOOK IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, WHEREBY, AT PAGES 80 TO 135, REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, AS APPROVED BY THE TEHS ILDAR, HAVE BEEN ANNEXED. THE APPELLANT ALSO PLACED RELIA NCE ON A NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, H IGH COURTS AND TRIBUNAL, INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIO NS. 9. LD. CIT(A), HAD DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SIDH U RICE & GENERAL MILLS (2006) 281 ITR 426 (P&H) WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT; CONCURRENT FINDINGS SHOWED THAT EXCEPT FOR THE PHOTO COPY OF THE STOCK STATEMENT, FURNISHED TO THE BANK, THE AO, HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED STOCKS, AS REFLECTED IN THE SAID STATEMENT, AS AGAINST THE STOCKS DEPICTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET . IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD , CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL, TOOK A POSSIBLE VIEW, WHICH HAS N OT BEEN SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE. THUS, THERE WAS NO INTERFERE NCE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDING. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD IN THE SAID DECISION THAT THE VALUE OF STOCKS, AS SHOWN 11 TO THE BANKS VIS--VIS THE STOCK RECORDED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR VALID ADDITIO N. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CASE LAWS OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN COIMBATORE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. LTD. V CIT 95 ITR 375 (MAD ), CANNOT BE MADE TO HOLD FIELD, IN THE MATTER, IN THE FACE OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V SIDHU RICE & GENERAL MILLS( SUPRA). LD. CIT(A), HAS DISCUSSED SOME OTHER DECISIONS IN THE MATTER ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, SUCH AS CIT V M/S SANTOSH BOX FA CTORY P.LTD. (2011) 44 I.T. REPS 473 (P&H), WHEREIN IT HA S BEEN HELD THAT THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK MAY BE MATERIAL, WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT, BUT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE. WH ETHER IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE STOCK STATEMENT COULD BE ACCEPT ED AS BASIS FOR COMPUTING THE VALUE OF STOCK, DEPENDS UPO N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THE VALUE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS CORRECT . THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE BAR TO SUCH EXPLANATION BEING ACCEPTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE RECO RDED CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT, WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO B E PERVERSED. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES, ACCORDINGLY APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT BEING A DEVELOPER, IT IS ONE OF THE CONDITION OF THE PUDA TO PLEDGE COMMERCI AL PLOTS OF CERTAIN VALUE FOR GRANTING THE APPROVAL FOR DEVE LOPMENT OF THE LAND. THE VALUE SHOWN TO PUDA IS NOTHING BUT T O AVAIL THE BENEFIT. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON FOR SHOWING V ALUE OF THE 12 MORTGAGED PROPERTY TO PUDA, AT THE MARKET RATE, AS RECORDED THEREIN. IT IS MANDATORY TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF PU NJAB GOVERNMENT, FAILING WHICH NO PURCHASE/SALE DEED CAN BE REGISTERED. THE APPELLANT FILED NECESSARY DOCUMENT S, ALONGWITH CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE, AS RECORDED AT PAGE 10 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS ADOPTED VALUE O F THE PROPERTY, AS RECORDED IN THE MORTGAGE DEED, WHICH W AS MORTGAGED TO PUDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIREMENTS O F STATE LAWS. THE AO, HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE O R MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION TO DIFFE RENTIAL RATES, AS RECORDED IN MORTGAGE DEED AND REGISTERED SALE DE ED. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : HE HAS ALSO MENTIONED JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE C ASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS CIT(1954) 26 ITR 7 75 THAT ITO IS NO ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS AND MAKE AN ASSESSMEN T WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. THERE MUST B E SOMETHING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICION TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND I COME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THERE IS STRONG DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I.E. PAGES 28 TO 31 OF ANNEXURE A-I, FOUND & IMPOUNDED FOR THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD MENTIONED THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY I.E. SCFS @ RS.5,000/- PER SQ. YD. AND THE SAME RAT E IS APPLIED TO ALL THE SALES OF SCFS MADE DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE AT VILLAGE DOLON. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD EIGHT SCFS DURING THE YEAR MEASUR ING 100 SQ.YDS. EACH (TOTAL 800 SQ. YDS) @ RS. 1,200/- PER SQ. YD. I.E.R S.9,60,000/- AS PER REGISTRATION DEED FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. HOWEVER THE TOTAL SALES @ RS.5,000/- PER SQ.YD. COME TO RS. 40,00,000/-. AS SUCH THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.30,40,000/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS OVER AND ABOVE MONEY RECEIVED ON THE SALES OF SCFS AS MENTIO NED ABOVE. 13 12. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE T O JUSTIFY ADOPTION OF 'FAIR MARKET VALUE' OF THE SAID PROPERT Y VIS--VIS THE RATE SHOWN IN THE REGD. SALE DEED. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON THE PARTY, WHO ASSERTS A PROPOSITION OR FACT, WHICH IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT. TH E BURDEN OF PROOF HAS TWO SHADES OF MEANING. IN THE PRIMARY SE NSE, IT MEANS, THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE CASE. THE SE COND MEANING OF BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE. IN THE SECOND SENSE, THE BURDEN WOULD BE SHIFTED FR OM ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER, AS AND WHEN ADEQUATE EVIDENCE T O DISCHARGE THE BURDEN, THAT LAY ON A PARTY, IS BEING PRODUCED, BY THAT PARTY. 13. FURTHER, THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT APPARENT, IS N OT THE REAL ONE, IS ON THE PARTY WHO CLAIMS IT TO BE SO, A S HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V DAUL AT RAM RAWATMULL (1973) 87 ITR 349 (S.C) AND CIT V DURGA P RASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C). IN VIEW OF THE WELL S ETTLED PROPOSITION, ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO DISCHARGE TH E BURDEN IN THE MATTER. 14. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS COMPETENT TO RELY ON THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HUMAN PROBABILITY TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTIONS, AS HELD B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V DURGA DA SS MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C). HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATE RIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION IN THE MATTER, ON TH E BASIS OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDUCT OF HUMAN PROBABILITY. THE AO IS COMPETENT TO INVOKE THE PRI NCIPLE OF 14 EVIDENCE ACT TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHUHAR MAL V C IT (1998) 178 ITR 250, WHEREIN IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE LAW ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HUMAN PROBABILIT Y HAS TO BE GUIDING PRINCIPLE. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FURTHE R HELD THAT IN THAT CASE, THAT WHAT WAS MEANT BY SAYING TH AT EVIDENCE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER INCOME- TAX ACT,1961 WAS THAT RIGORS OF RULES OF EVIDENCE, CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; BUT THAT DI D NOT MEAN THAT WHEN THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE DESIROUS OF I NVOKING THE PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE ACT IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM, WHICH WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO. THE CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARAMJIT SINGH V ITO 323 ITR 5 88 (P&H), WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : WE HAVE THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THEY DO NOT WARRANT ACCEPTANCE. THERE IS WELL 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 1872 ACT') INCORPORATE THE AFORES AID 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 SUCH 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 N O 15 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' TO SECTION 92 IF THER E IS ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT IN WRITING BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHERE ONE HAS TO PAY THE OTHER A PRINCIPAL SUM BY SPECIFIED DATE THEN THE ORAL AGREEMENT THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT TO BE PAID TILL THE SPECIFIED DATE CANNOT BE PROVED. THEREFORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT NO ORA L AGREEMENT CONTRADICTING/ VARYING THE TERMS OF A DOCUMENT COULD BE OFFERED. ONCE THE AFORESAID PRINCIPAL IS CLEAR THEN OSTENSIBLE SALE CONSIDERATI ON DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 24.9.2002 (A.7) HA S TO BE ACCEPTED AND IT CANNOT BE CONTRADICTED BY ADDUCING ANY ORAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMI TY IN REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS RECEIVED BY THE VENDORS AND DESERVES TO BE ADDED TO THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT. 15. SIMILARLY, IN THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V CHANDNI BHUCHAR (2010) 323 ITR 510 (P&H), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PURCHASE PRICE, DISCLO SED IN THE SALE DEED CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS THE PURCHASE PRICE, ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY , FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 69B ON UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, CANNOT BE B ASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY THE SALE DEED, WOULD REMAIN UN-REBUTTED, UNLESS DISPLACED BY THE CREDIBL E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA 16 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SATINDER KUMAR (200 1) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CLEARLY HELD THAT AO IS NOT COMPETENT TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, IN RE SPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION RE CORDED IN THE REGD. SALE DEED. THUS, THE HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD SANCTITY OF THE CONSIDERATION, AS SPECIFIED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. 15(I) SIMILARLY, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V MOTOR & GENERAL STORES LTD. 66 ITR 692 (S.C) HELD THAT, IT IS, THEREFORE, OBVIOUS THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO DEDUCE THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT FROM THE PURPORTED INTENTIONS, BY GOING BE HIND THE DOCUMENT OR TO CONSIDER THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER OR TO ACCEPT IT IN PART AND REJECT IT IN PART OR TO RE-WR ITE THE DOCUMENT, MERELY TO SUIT PURPOSE OF REVENUE. FURTHER, THE DECISION AS QUOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE CASE O F K.P.VARGHESE V ITO 131 ITR 597 (S.C.) IS ALSO RELEV ANT, IN THE MATTER. SIMILARLY, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V P.V.KALYANASUNDARAM, 28 2 ITR 259 (MAD), IT WAS UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT, AS R EPORTED IN 294 ITR 49 (S.C) IS ALSO RELEVANT IN THE MATTER. 16. THE SANCTITY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED, EVEN IN T HE FACE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL, HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY UPHELD BY TH E HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V SMT . K.C.AGNES AND OTHERS (2003) 262 ITR 354, WHEREIN TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT SHOWS FIXED PRICE, THERE WILL BE A PRESUMPTION THAT, THAT IS CO RRECT PRICE, 17 AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TH AT 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. EVEN IF, IT IS PRESUMED TO BE SO, UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ACTED UPON AND UNLESS THE AM OUNT STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS PAID FOR SALE, THE COUR T CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS NOT CORRECT. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSI ONS, AND HAVING REGARD TO THE DISCUSSIONS BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AN D, HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEPT.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH SEPT.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH