Ita/14/2008 Of Babu C.george v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 14 of 2008() -------------------- ITA.479/COCHIN/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN ITA/APPELLANT BEOFRE CIT(A): ----------------------------------------------------------------- BABU C.GEORGE, CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.MATHEWS SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.V.C.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN ITA/APPELLANT BEOFRE CIT(A): --------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NOS.16/08 & 19/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. Nos. 14, 16 & 19 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel appearing for the appellant and StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent. The various questions raisedpertain to addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 of theIT Act. The assessee/appellant entered into agreements forpurchase of property with various parties. According to theDepartment, agreements seized in search contains actual sale price,i.e., the value of the property later purchased by the assesseepursuant to such agreements. Assessee's case is that, higheramount is shown for the reason that there was likelihood ofacquisition of property, as it was near to Nedumbassery Airport.Counsel further contended that amount shown as received by theseller on the reverse of the agreement was lesser than the amountshown in the agreement and the sale deed showed still lesseramount. However, addition under Section 69 was made based onactual amount shown in the sale agreements. The Tribunalconfirmed the same and these appeals are filed to modify that order.We do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal ITA : 14, 16 & 19/2008 confirming assessment for the simple reason that the assessee'scase that higher amount is shown in the agreement for sale,anticipating acquisition, is unacceptable. In the first place, theagreement binds the assessee and the assessee cannot beexpected to agree to pay sale consideration other than what isagreed. Further, by showing higher amount in the agreementexecuted by the assessee, the assessee cannot claim highercompensation based on his own agreement. It is commonknowledge that sale agreements which are enforceable in courts andwhich bind the parties, contain actual sale consideration and afterpayments are made, sale deeds are executed showing lesser saleconsideration. We do not find any question of law arising out of theorders of Tribunal confirming assessments made based on theagreements signed by the assessee himself. Appeals areconsequently dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge.