The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv V. Smt.R.Nalini Devi

ITTA/232/2013

AI Insights

The case involved an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the decision of the ITAT, which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the assessment year 2004-05. The core issue was the valuation of a property transaction, where the Assessing Officer relied on an unsigned photocopy of a sale agreement to assert a higher transaction value than what was recorded in the registered sale deed. The ITAT and subsequently the High Court found that the unsigned photocopy lacked evidentiary value and that the registered sale deed should prevail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681208 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Commissioner of Income Tax; Income Tax; ITAT; Registered Sale Deed; Sale agreement; Smt. R. Nalini Devi; Unsigned photocopy

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.232 OF 2013 DATED:10.7.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax – IV Hyderabad … Appellant And Smt. R. Nalini Devi … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.232 OF 2013 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred on the following suggested questions of law: 1. “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT is justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without duly taking into consideration all the materials/documents seized during the course of search and statement of the assessee recorded during the course of search; 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, without appreciating that a copy of the sale agreement dated 19.5.2002 seized vide Annexure A/RNLD/1 from the assessee’s premises clearly indicates that the sale agreement was signed by the assessee (vendor) as well as the vendee? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, without appreciating that a copy of the receipt dated 19.5.2002 signed by the assessee and her two sons and witnessed by assessee’s spouse evidencing the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs as advance from the vendee towards the sale of plot, was seized vide annexure A/RNLD/1 from the assessee premises, which also confirms that advance was received by the assessee as mentioned in clause 2 on page 2 of the sale agreement?” This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.18.9.2012, in relation to assessment year 2004-05. Two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by common judgment and order involving questions of fact and law. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the Assessing Officer had relied on a photocopy of an unsigned sale agreement in order to find that consideration amount has been paid at Rs.1,68,00,000/-. Therefore, this amount was not disclosed. The learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that unsigned photocopy of the agreement for purchase of the property cannot be a material to rely on, when the registered sale deed has been produced and the same shows that the property was purchased at a price of Rs.23,50,000/-. This registered sale deed was disclosed at the time of original assessment. According to us, the agreement of sale loses its force, the moment registered sale deed is executed. If the property has been purchased at a higher price than that of mentioned in the purchase deed, then the onus is on the Assessing Officer to establish that, as has been rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover, photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusion that the price of the property is more than mentioned in the sale deed. There must be some material and basis to conclude that the purchase has been made at an under valuation. The other points decided by the learned Tribunal are on facts and such appreciation of facts cannot be gone into by this Court. Therefore, we do not find any flaw in the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 10.7.2013 bnr "