Itta/232/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Smt.r.nalini Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE 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 – IVHyderabad … AppellantAnd Smt. R. Nalini Devi … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE 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 suggestedquestions of law: 1.“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, ITAT is justified in upholding the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without duly takinginto consideration all the materials/documents seized duringthe course of search and statement of the assessee recordedduring the course of search;law, ITAT is justified in upholding the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without duly takinginto consideration all the materials/documents seized duringthe course of search and statement of the assessee recordedduring the course of search; 2.Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue,without appreciating that a copy of the sale agreement dated19.5.2002 seized vide Annexure A/RNLD/1 from theassessee’s premises clearly indicates that the sale agreementwas signed by the assessee (vendor) as well as the vendee?law, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue,without appreciating that a copy of the sale agreement dated19.5.2002 seized vide Annexure A/RNLD/1 from theassessee’s premises clearly indicates that the sale agreementwas signed by the assessee (vendor) as well as the vendee? 3.Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue,without appreciating that a copy of the receipt dated 19.5.2002signed by the assessee and her two sons and witnessed byassessee’s spouse evidencing the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs asadvance from the vendee towards the sale of plot, was seizedvide annexure A/RNLD/1 from the assessee premises, whichalso confirms that advance was received by the assessee asmentioned in clause 2 on page 2 of the sale agreement?”law, ITAT is justified in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue,without appreciating that a copy of the receipt dated 19.5.2002signed by the assessee and her two sons and witnessed byassessee’s spouse evidencing the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs asadvance from the vendee towards the sale of plot, was seizedvide annexure A/RNLD/1 from the assessee premises, whichalso confirms that advance was received by the assessee asmentioned in clause 2 on page 2 of the sale agreement?” This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal dt.18.9.2012, in relation to assessment year2004-05. Two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by commonjudgment and order involving questions of fact and law. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal dt.18.9.2012, in relation to assessment year2004-05. Two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by commonjudgment and order involving questions of fact and law. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the Assessing Officer had relied on a photocopy of anunsigned sale agreement in order to find that consideration amount hasbeen paid at Rs.1,68,00,000/-. Therefore, this amount was notdisclosed. The learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that unsignedphotocopy of the agreement for purchase of the property cannot be amaterial to rely on, when the registered sale deed has been producedand the same shows that the property was purchased at a price ofRs.23,50,000/-. This registered sale deed was disclosed at the time oforiginal assessment. According to us, the agreement of sale loses itsforce, the moment registered sale deed is executed. If the property hasbeen purchased at a higher price than that of mentioned in the purchasedeed, then the onus is on the Assessing Officer to establish that, as hasbeen rightly concluded by the Tribunal on this issue. Moreover,photocopy of the unsigned agreement has got no evidentiary value. TheAssessing Officer has done a guess work while coming to the conclusionthat the price of the property is more than mentioned in the sale deed. There must be some material and basis to conclude that the purchasehas been made at an under valuation. The other points decided by the learned Tribunal are on facts andsuch appreciation of facts cannot be gone into by this Court. Therefore, we do not find any flaw in the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as tocosts. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J