Ramchandra Prabhakar Suryawanshi v. The Income Tax Officer Latur And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 936 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.76 OF 2018 RAMCHANDRA PRABHAKAR SURYAWANSHIVERSUSTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER LATUR AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Halkude Sharad S. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. Bharaswadkar PatilKalpalata ... CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.G. MEHARE, J.J. DATED : 12[th] APRIL, 2022 PER COURT.:- 1.By this appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, the appellant has impugned the order dated02.06.2017 dismissing the appeal by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal and confirming the order passed by the Commissioner,Income Tax (Appeals-2) and the assessment order. 2.It is the case of the appellant that he had purchased theproperty vide purchase deed dated 14.07.2010 from Shri RajansinghKuvarsingh Baisthkur for the sum of Rs.2 lakhs only. The saidvaluation was reflected according to the appellant in the accounts ofthe appellant. 3.The assessing officer, however, made an addition ofRs.28,88,125/- as deemed income being unexplained investment in land shown less in balance sheet. Being aggrieved by the saidaddition, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)passed an order on 19.02.2016 dismissing the appeal filed by theappellant. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.02.2016passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appellantpreferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By adetailed order rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, thesaid appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original of the agreement of sale between the vendor of the said landin favour of the appellant and the erstwhile tenor was producedbefore the assessing officer and thus, based on a photocopy of the saidagreement for sale, the assessing officer could not have made anaddition of Rs.28,88,125/- as deemed income being unexplainedinvestment in land shown less in balance sheet. 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel that similar error isalso committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) andalso by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while confirming theadditions made by the assessing officer. 6.Learned counsel for the revenue on the other handopposes this appeal on the ground that there are no substantialquestions of law involved in this appeal filed by the assessee. She submits that full opportunity was granted to the appellant to leadevidence and also to cross-examine the vendor of the said land andalso the erstwhile purchaser. The appellant had cross-examined boththe parties. She submits that these findings of fact cannot beinterfered with by this Court in this petition filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel that similar error isalso committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) andalso by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while confirming theadditions made by the assessing officer. 6.Learned counsel for the revenue on the other handopposes this appeal on the ground that there are no substantialquestions of law involved in this appeal filed by the assessee. She submits that full opportunity was granted to the appellant to leadevidence and also to cross-examine the vendor of the said land andalso the erstwhile purchaser. The appellant had cross-examined boththe parties. She submits that these findings of fact cannot beinterfered with by this Court in this petition filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.Perusal of the record indicates that it is undisputedposition that before the assessing officer, Shri Rajansingh KuvarsinghBaisthkur from whom the appellant had purchased the said land wasexamined. The appellant had cross-examined him. The assessingofficer had also asked various questions to the earlier purchaser ShriAyub Haji Abdul Rashid Qureshi. In the evidence of the said ShriAyub Haji Abdul Rashid Qureshi who was the earlier purchaser of thesame land from Shri Rajansingh Kuvarsingh Baisthkur, it had come inthe evidence that the earlier purchaser Shri Ayub Haji Abdul RashidQureshi was ready to purchase the said land for Rs.30,88,125/- being81R. The assessing officer has after considering the oral evidence ofthese parties, recorded a finding that if the same land was agreed tobe purchased by Shri Ayub Haji Abdul Rashid Qureshi for the sum ofRs.30,88,125/-, how the said land within a period of two monthscould have been agreed to be sold in favour of the appellant in thesum of Rs.2 lakhs only. After considering this aspect in great detailand the admission of Shri Rajansingh Kuvarsingh Baisthkur, the assessing officer made addition of Rs.28,88,125/- as deemed incomebeing unexplained investment in land shown less in the balance sheetof the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alsoafter considering the oral and documentary evidence, recorded thefindings that there was unexplained investment in land shown less inthe balance sheet of the appellant and dismissed the appeal filed bythe appellant. 8.We have also perused the impugned order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunalhas also recorded various findings of fact while dismissing the appealpreferred by the appellant. 9.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged thaton the basis of photocopy of the agreement for sale between ShriAyub Haji Abdul Rashid Qureshi and Shri Rajansingh KuvarsinghBaisthkur, the assessing officer could not have made an addition inthe income of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant couldnot dispute that the appellant had cross-examined Shri RajansinghKuvarsingh Baisthkur. Even in the cross-examination of the said sellerShri Rajansingh Kuvarsingh Baisthkur, he admitted that he hadreceived the sum of Rs.30.55 lakhs out of which Rs.2 lakhs wasreceived by cheque and balance amount of Rs.23.50 lakhs wasreceived in cash. 10.In our view, the entire order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on pure findings of fact. No substantialquestion of law arises in this appeal filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The appeal being devoid of merit isaccordingly dismissed. (S.G. MEHARE. J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)