INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147

Reassessment - Validity - Addition towards unexplained investment -

AO found that assessee had disclosed in his return that he had acquired a property jointly with his wife. The seller stated that there was no agreement for sale and assessee paid a token sum of Rs. 101 and the entire sale consideration was received in cash. Assessee himself accepted correctness of statement made by seller and submitted the consent letter authenticating the facts stated by the seller in his statement. He could not produce any cogent argument or documentary evidence to substantiate that his acceptance was under duress. Therefore, AO treated the said sum as unexplained investment in the hands of assessee. Held: As during the course of assessment proceedings assessee was granted sufficient opportunity. Further, as pleaded by him, the cross-examination of the seller was also granted by AO wherein assessee could not disprove the fact that he had not paid the sum in cash. Since assessee had not laid any material for the alleged duress, original statement made by assessee with the corroborating evidences from the seller side clinches the issue in favour of Revenue. Therefore, assessee's appeal was dismissed.

REFERRED : CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Limited (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) : 1986 TaxPub(DT) 1423 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1130 (SC) CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmall (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0323 (SC) Paramjit Singh v. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1488 (P&H-HC) and Sharad U. Mishra v. DCIT [ITA No. 467/JP/2011, dt. 25-11-2016]

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT