Satyaveer Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Moti Dungarialwar, Rajasthan.alwar, Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 40/2022 Satyaveer Singh S/o Late Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 55 Years,R/o Village Barso District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Moti DungariAlwar, Rajasthan.Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, JaipurRajasthan.Rajasthan. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.-1, Goverdhan GateNear Head Post Office , Bharatpur, Rajasthan.Near Head Post Office , Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s): Mr. Nehpal Yogi, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S.Bhati, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S.Bhati, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/04/2023 1. Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The delay is accordingly condoned. 4. Application No.869/2022 is allowed. -D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 40/2022: 1.Heard. 2.This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.10.2021 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Benches “A”, Jaipur.3.As per information available with the department, theassessee made cash deposits of Rs.19,00,500/- during the yearunder consideration in SBBJ Bank, Jaipur Branch. To verify thesource of same, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 was issued. The proceedings eventually led to reopening ofassessment. Rs. 12,22,000/- was added to the income and orderwas passed. On appeal preferred, the appeal was also dismissed.When the assessee filed an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal which was also dismissed holding that theevidence on record proved that the total amount of considerationout of the sale of agriculture land was only Rs.6.75 lacs and theappellant’s case that the sale consideration in Rs.20,80,000/- wasrejected. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding ofthe learned Tribunal is perverse and opposed to law. Hissubmission is that in support of its case of sale consideration ofRs.20,80,000/-, the appellant relied upon the registered sale deedwhich exhibited market value and payment of stamp dutiestherein which is proportionate to the income as claimed by theappellant. He would next submit that the assessee had led oralevidence also of other shareholders/owners to say that the actualsale consideration was Rs.20,80,000/- and not Rs.6.75 lacs asrecited in the registered sale deed. The seller’s statement weretaken on record and believed without giving any opportunity ofhearing to the appellant. As the sale consideration of registered sale deed was limited to Rs.6.75 lacs, the remaining amount wastreated as income chargeable tax and addition wrongly made. sale deed was limited to Rs.6.75 lacs, the remaining amount wastreated as income chargeable tax and addition wrongly made. 5.We have gone through the order passed by the learnedTribunal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral anddocumentary evidence led by the parties before. it. In order torecord a finding of fact against the appellant and in faovur of theRevenue, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration therecital contained in the registered sale deed which clearly showsthat the sale consideration was Rs.6.75 lacs. The aspect relatingto valuation of the property for the purposes of stamp duty wasalso taken into consideration but the Assessing Authority,Appellate Authority and ITAT all recorded concurrent findingplacing reliance mainly on the sale deed and recital containedtherein. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant-assessee thatthe entire sale consideration was transferred in the account of theassessee through cheque issued by the purchasers. It is a case ofcash deposit. Therefore, the burden was on the assessee to provethat the consideration for sale was Rs. 20,80,000/- and not whatwas recited in the sale deed. 6.Be that as it may, we find that all the authorities haveappreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded theirfindings of fact on the issue as to what actually was the saleconsideration in the matter of transaction of sale of agriculturalland. Even though the submission of learned counsel for theappellant would be that there was no proper appreciation ofevidence, it is essentially a case of appreciation of evidence andnot of substantial question of law. As the appeal does not involveany substantial question of law, we are not inclined to re- appreciate and interfere with the concurrent finding of factsrecorded by the all the authorities including the Tribunal. 7.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ N.Gandhi/28