Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Singla Enclave Developers (P) Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 September, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE Ms.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 66 & 67/CHD/2012
Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10
The DCI T, CC-III, V M/s Singla Enclave
Ludhiana. Developers (P) Ltd.,
3325, Phase-II, Urban Estate,
Dugri, Ludhiana.
PAN: AAICS0-9626D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Manjit Singh
Respondent : Shri Satish Kumar
Date of Hearing : 25.09.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2012
ORDER
PER MEHAR SINGH, AM
The Revenue filed these appeals against the separate order, each dated 18.11.2011 passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 250(6) of the Income-Act,1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10.
2. The issue involved in both the appeals is common in nature and the same is being adjudicated by a single consolidated order, for the sake of convenience and brevity. However, the grounds of appeal, as raised by the revenue in ITA No. 66/Chd/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) are reproduced hereunder :
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the additions amounting to Rs. 30,40,000/-.2
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the additions amounting to Rs.30,40,000/- by holding that the documents of mortgage cannot be taken to be sufficient evidence so as to substitute the sale consideration as per books of account, thus completely ignoring the facts regarding rate of land mentioned in such documents impounded from the business premises of the company.
3. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is heard and disposed off.
4. It is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set-aside and that of the A.O. be restored."
3. The assessee is in the business of developing Real Estate Projects, like residential colonies etc. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee sold 8 SCF, measuring 100 sq.yds. each, @ 1200 per sq.yd. The AO, confronted the assessee in respect of contents, as recorded at pages 28 to 31 of Annexure-I, found and seized in the course of search operations, from the business premises of the assessee company, namely M/s Singla Enclave Developers P.Ltd. The assessee company had mortgaged to PUDA 4 SCF, measuring 100 sq.yd. each (total 400 sq.yds) at Village Dalon, Distt. Ludhiana, for Rs.20 lacs, mentioning the same as 'Fair Market Value' of the property, as on 17.08.2006. The AO, recorded in the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 for assessment year 2008-09 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, that the assessee company itself has shown the 'Fair Market Value' of the property at Rs.20 lacs on 17.08.2006. Both the assessee and the Government Authority i.e. PUDA accepted the said 'Fair Market Value' of the said property. The AO, further observed that the market 3 value of the property may be more than the value on 17.8.2006 and consequently, vide order-sheet entry dated, 24.12.2010, the assessee was required to show cause as to why the Sale Deed of all the sales of SCFs made during the year, should not be taken at Rs.5000/- per sq.yd. The assessee filed reply before AO on 29.12.2010 as under; "The assessee has sold all the SCFs atl east at the circle rate f ixed by the revenue authority or at the higher rate which has been f ixed by the State Government for the stamp duty f ee." Consequently, on the basis of 'Fair Market Value' recorded at pages 28 to 31, the AO computed the sale consideration of 8 SCFs, measuring 100 sq.yd. each ( i.e. total 800 sq.yd. @ Rs.1200/- per sq.yd. i.e. Rs.9,60,000/-), as per Registration Deed filed during the assessment proceedings. The AO, further observed that the total sales @ 5000/- per sq. yd. works out to Rs.40 lacs. In view of this, the balance amount of Rs.30,40,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee, as over and above the money received on the sale of SCF by the assessee appellant.
4. The AO, followed the same line of reasoning for the assessment year 2009-10 in assessee's case and made the addition of Rs.22,80,000/- in respect of the property sold during the period under reference. Thus, the AO, in both the assessment years made the addition on identical grounds. Ld. CI T(A), on appreciation of various case-laws cited by the appellant, adjudicated the issue in both the appeals, in favour of the assessee.
4
5. The relevant facts as marshalled out by the CIT(A), including case-laws relied upon by the AO and the assessee appellant, recorded his identical findings, in both the appeals as under :
"10. The AO has placed reliance on a mortgage document wherein (she assessee had mortgaged four SCFs in order to meet the guarantee requirements of PUDA. The SCFs were projected to be having a market value of Rs. 5000/- per square yard and on the basis of this the AO came to the conclusion that the value of all other SCFs would also be @ Rs. 5000/- per square yard and therefore the assessee had under stated the sale consideration by selling the same @ Rs. 1200/- per square yard. The appellant has claimed that the company got approval of colony from PUDA and it was one of their conditions that the appellant will mortgage in favour of the State Govt. immovable property equivalent to Rs. 2 Lac gross acre as a security for execution of internal development works. It had been claimed by the appellant that the valuation of SCFs mortgaged with PUDA was only intended to meet the security amount .requirements of PUDA and had no relationship with the actual saleable price of the SCFs. It was thus claimed that the higher valuation would not mean that the actual sale had taken place @ Rs. 5,000/- per square yard. The AR of the appellant relied upon the following judicial pronouncements to support his case:-
1. "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI WOOLLEN MILLS decided by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi XD' Bench reported in (2009) 125 TTJ (Del) 810, held:-
Assessee having shown higher stock for obtaining credit facility from the bank against hypothecation of stock, and there being no evidence on record to show that the assessee was in fact in possession of higher quantity of stock as declared to the bank, addition could not be made on mere comparison of the stock declared to the bank and the one shown in the books of account.
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. N.SWAMY decided by Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in (2000) 241 ITR 363, held :- The assessee's income is to assessed by the Income Tax Officer on the sis of the material which is required to be considered for the purpose of 5 assessment and ordinarily not on the basis of the statement which the assessee may have given to the third party less there is material to corroborate that statement of the 'assessee given to a third party, even if it be a bank. The mere fact that the assessee had made such a statement by itself cannot be treated as having resulted in an irrebuttable presumption against the assessee. The burden of showing that the assessee had undisclosed income is on the Revenue. That burden cannot be said to be discharged by merely referring to the statement given by the assessee to a third party in connection with a transaction which was not directly related to the assessment and making that the sole foundation for a finding that the assessee had deliberately suppressed his income.
The burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions and there was in fact income. The assessee had shown the value of the stock in its books of account. The Income Tax Officer thought that the figures relating to the value of the stocks as the assessee had given a declaration to the bank from which it had obtained overdraft facilities and in its declaration valued the stock at a figure higher than that in the books of the assessee. The Income Tax Officer computed the difference between the value as recorded in the books and that found in the declaration to the bank and treated the same as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee had contended that the value of the stocks as stated by him in the declaration given to the bank was inflated, that he had not suppressed the value of the stock, and that there was income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner to whom the assessee appealed, reduced the amount of the addition from Rs.34,070 to Rs.26,000. On appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal deleted the addition. On a reference : HELD, that the Tribunal had accepted the explanation of the assessee. The Tribunal had exercised its jurisdiction and the question decided by it was a question of fact. Therefore, there was no scope for interference with the order of the Tribunal.
3. Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. C.I.T. decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC).
4. ASHOK KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER decided by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (2006) 201 CTR (J&K) 178, held :-
Addition could not be made on the basis of difference between closing stock declared in the trading account and the stock shown in the statement submitted by the assessee to the bank as stock position shown to the bank 6 was on estimate basis and inflated value was shown to avail more credit from bank.
5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. M/S SANTOSH BOX FACTORY PVT.LTD. decided by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in (2011) 44 I.T.Reps. 473 (P&H),held :- The stock statement furnished to the bank may be material which may be required to be gone into during assessment but cannot be treated as conclusive. Whether in a given case the stock statement could be accepted as basis for computing the value of the stock depends upon the circumstances of each case. If the assessee is able to show that the statement was given only on estimate basis and value reflected in the books of account was correct, there is no absolute bar to such explanation being accepted. In the present case, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have recorded a concurrent finding of fact which is not shown to ,be perverse. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SIDHU RICE AND GENERAL MILLS decided by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in (2006) 281 ITR 428 (P&H), held :- dismissing the appeal, that the concurrent findings showed that except for the photocopy of the stock statement furnished to the bank, the Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to show that the assessee possessed stocks as reflected in the said statement as against the stocks depicted in the balance-sheet. It was also found that the books of account were regularly maintained by the assessee and had been accepted by the Department. On the basis of the material on record, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal took a possible view which had not been shown to be perverse. Thus, there was to be no interference with the concurrent findings.
7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARROW EXIM (P) LTD. decided by Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat reported in ((2010) 230 CTR (Guj) 293, held :-Tribunal having accepted the explanation of the assessee regarding the difference between the stock as per books of account and that shown in the statement submitted to the bank in view of the fact that assessee's books of account and the accounting system have been found to be genuine and is supported by 7 vouchers, etc. and deleted the impugned addition, no interference is warranted.
8. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VEERDIP ROLLERS P. LTD. decided by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court reported in (2010) 323 ITR 341 (Guj), held :-Addition was made under section 69B of the Income Tax Act,1961, on account of difference between the closing stock furnished in statement to the bank for availing of credit facility and that shown in the books of account furnished before the Income Tax Authorities. The Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that the statement submitted by the assessee to the bank was on estimate basis and the value of the stock was inflated to avail of greater credit from the bank and that there was no justification for making any addition on the allegation of inflated stock shown to the bank. On appeal:
held, dismissing the appeal that the Tribunal had considered whether the value of stock shown in the books of account was genuine or not and there was no reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal was perverse. (The Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Department against this judgement; see (2008) 307 ITR (st.).
9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KHAN & SIROHI STEEL ROLLING MILLS decided by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in (2006) 200 CTR (All)595, held :- Tribunal was justified in accepting the explanation of the assessee that in view of the prevailing practice, the value of stock hypothecated to bank was inflated to avail of more overdraft facilities and deleting the addition on account of difference between stock shown to bank and stock shown in the books of assessee.
10. INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD RAIKA decided by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh reported in (2010) 232 CTR (Chhattisgarh) 101, held :- CIT(A) and the Tribunal having accepted the explanation of the assessee that he has shown higher stock to the bank by showing lesser sales and recorded a finding of fact that no excess stock was available with the assessee and deleted the impugned addition under section 69B, no substantial question of law arises."
8
11. It is apparent that the AO has merely relied upon the valuation of SCFs as pledged by the assessee before the PUDA and has not gone beyond this point to conduct any enquiry to bring on record any evidence of actual sale of SCFs @ Rs. 5000/- per square yard as against Rs. 1200/- per square yard recorded in the books of accounts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Handerson & Company Limited 66 ITR 622 has observed that full value of Consideration for which the sale, exchange or transfer of the capital asset is made appearing in section 12B of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding to the present section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1-961), does not mean the market value of the asset transferred but the price bargained for by the parties to the sale, etc. The consideration for the transfer of the capital asset is what the transferor receives in lieu of the asset he parts with, viz., money or money's worth. The expression "full consideration" in the main part of the section 12B(2) can not be construed as having a reference to the market value of the asset transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of, full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration as per registered document being less than the value fixed by revenue authorities for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. It means that the full value of consideration as evidenced by the registered document can be substituted for the value meant for the purposes of stamp duty as per section 50C. This section has been introduced by Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and has been titled "special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases" which means that the full value of consideration can be substituted only if the conditions as stipulated in the provisions of section 50C are fulfilled. Apart from the provisions of section 50C, the sale consideration as reflected in the registered document can be substituted by a higher figure if there is evidence on record to suggest that amount over and above the one recorded in the registered documents had passed on from the buyer to the seller. The issue under consideration is therefore whether the •document relied upon by the AO can be taken to be evidence enough to reject the book results of the assessee and substitute the sales price on estimate basis. It has been held in catena of judgements as highlighted by the AR that the valuation of stocks can not be a reliable basis to make an addition by holding that the assessee was actually in possession of stocks as per valuation submitted to the bank. The view of jurisdictional high court on the issue is clearly detailed in the judgement in 9 the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SIDHU RICE AND GENERAL MILLS decided by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in (2006) 281 ITR 428 (P&H). The Hon'ble court held:-
"That the concurrent findings showed that except for the photocopy of the stock statement furnished to the bank, the Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to show that the assessee possessed stocks as reflected in the £aid statement as against the stocks depicted in the balance-sheet. It was also found that the books of account were regularly maintained by the assessee and had been accepted by the Department. On the basis of the material on record, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal took a possible view which had not been shown to be perverse. Thus, there was to be no interference with the concurrent findings."
The claim of the appellant that the valuation of SCFs was artificially inflated to meet the requirements of PUDA seems probable as by doing so fewer number of SCFs had to be mortgaged. The conduct of the assessee in doing so. may invite suitable action by PUDA authorities in terms of misrepresentation, but the same can not be taken to be the value of the SCFs so as to reject the sale consideration as recorded in the registered deeds which is in accordance with the stamp duty regulation. This means that the document of mortgage can not be taken to be sufficient evidence so as to substitute the sale consideration as per books of accounts. As such the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted."
6. In the course of present appellate proceedings, ld. 'DR' referred to para 2 at page 2 of the impugned assessment order and also the findings of the ld. CI T(A), as recorded at page 18 of the appellate order. Ld. 'DR' placed reliance on the decision in the case of Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. V CI T 95 ITR 375 (Mad). Ld. 'DR' further argued that the assessee appellant himself has shown the 'Fair Market Value' of the property at higher rate, as is evident from the value recorded in the Mortgage Deed, entered into by the appellant with PUDA. Therefore, the 10 sub-standard morality of the assessee, needs to be taken into consideration and the findings of the AO be upheld.
7. Ld. 'AR', on the other hand, placed reliance on the findings recorded by the ld. CI T(A), in both the cases.
8. We have carefully perused the rival submissions, facts of the case and the relevant record. The appellant has filed Paper Book in both these appeals, whereby, at pages 80 to 135, Registered Sale Deeds, as approved by the Tehsildar, have been annexed. The appellant also placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunal, including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, to support his contentions.
9. Ld. CI T(A), had discussed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CI T V Sidhu Rice & General Mills (2006) 281 I TR 426 (P&H) wherein, it has been held that; "concurrent f indings sho wed that except f or the photo copy of the stock statement, f urnished to the bank, the AO, had not brought any material on record to show that the assessee possessed stocks, as ref lected in the said statement, as against the stocks depicted in the Balance Sheet. It was also f ound that the books of account were regularly maintained by the assessee and had been accepted by the Department. On the basis of the material on record, CIT(A) and the Tribunal, took a possible vie w, which has not been sho wn to be perverse. Thus, there was no interf erence with the concurrent f inding." Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held in the said decision that the value of stocks, as shown 11 to the banks vis-à-vis the stock recorded in the books of account, cannot be made the basis for valid addition. In view of this, the case laws of the Madras High Court in Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. V CI T 95 ITR 375 (Mad), cannot be made to hold field, in the matter, in the face of the findings recorded by the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CI T V Sidhu Rice & General Mills( supra). Ld. CI T(A), has discussed some other decisions in the matter on the issue in question, such as CI T V M/s Santosh Box Factory P.Ltd. (2011) 44 I.T. REPS 473 (P&H), wherein it has been held that the stock statement furnished to the bank may be material, which may be required to be gone into during the assessment, but cannot be treated as conclusive. Whether in the given case, the stock statement could be accepted as basis for computing the value of stock, depends upon the circumstances of each case. If the assessee is able to show that the statement was given only on estimate basis and the value reflected in the books of account was correct. There is no absolute bar to such explanation being accepted. In the present case, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have recorded concurrent finding of fact, which is not shown to be perversed. No substantial question of law arises, accordingly appeal is dismissed.
10. The appellant contended that being a developer, it is one of the condition of the PUDA to pledge commercial plots of certain value for granting the approval for development of the land. The value shown to PUDA is nothing but to avail the benefit. This is the main reason for showing value of the 12 mortgaged property to PUDA, at the market rate, as recorded therein. It is mandatory to follow the rules of Punjab Government, failing which no purchase/sale deed can be registered. The appellant filed necessary documents, alongwith certain judicial precedence, as recorded at page 10 of the appellate order of the CI T(A).
11. In the present case, the AO has adopted value of the property, as recorded in the Mortgage Deed, which was mortgaged to PUDA for the purpose of requirements of State laws. The AO, has not brought any other evidence or material on record to justify the addition to differential rates, as recorded in Mortgage Deed and Registered Sale Deed. The relevant part of the assessment order is reproduced hereunder :
"He has also mentioned judgments of various Courts including the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 that ITO is no entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any material or evidence. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment. The reply of the assessee has been considered and I come to the conclusion that there is strong documentary evidence i.e. pages 28 to 31 of Annexure A-I, found & impounded for the business premises of the assessee Company, in which the assessee itself had mentioned the fair market value of the property i.e. SCFs @ Rs.5,000/- per sq. yd. and the same rate is applied to all the sales of SCFs made during the year by the assessee at Village Dolon. The assessee had sold eight SCFs during the year measuring 100 sq.yds. each (total 800 sq. yds) @ Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yd. i.e.Rs.9,60,000/- as per registration deed filed during assessment proceedings. However the total sales @ Rs.5,000/- per sq.yd. come to Rs. 40,00,000/-. As such the balance amount of Rs.30,40,000/- is added back to the total income of the assessee as over and above money received on the sales of SCFs as mentioned above."13
12. Needless to say that onus lies on the revenue to justify adoption of 'Fair Market Value' of the said property vis-à-vis the rate shown in the Regd. Sale Deed. The general rule is that 'burden of proof' is always on the party, who asserts a proposition or fact, which is not self-evident. The burden of proof has two shades of meaning. In the primary sense, it means, the burden of establishing the case. The second meaning of 'burden of proof' is on the principle of evidence. In the second sense, the burden would be shifted from one party to the other, as and when adequate evidence to discharge the burden, that lay on a party, is being produced, by that party.
13. Further, the onus to prove that apparent, is not the real one, is on the party who claims it to be so, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CI T V Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (S.C) and CI T V Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 I TR 540 (S.C). In view of the well settled proposition, onus is on the revenue to discharge the burden in the matter.
14. The assessing authority is competent to rely on the surrounding circumstances of the case and human probability to support their contentions, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CI T V Durga Dass More (1971) 82 I TR 540 (S.C). However, in the present case, the AO has failed to bring any cogent and credible material on record to justify the addition in the matter, on the basis of surrounding circumstances and conduct of human probability. The AO is competent to invoke the principle of 14 Evidence Act to support his contentions, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1998) 178 I TR 250, wherein it was highlighted that the principles of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be guiding principle. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in that case, that what was meant by saying that Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income- tax Act,1961 was that rigors of rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principle of Evidence Act in proceedings before them, which were prevented from doing so. The CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh V ITO 323 ITR 588 (P&H), which is reproduced hereunder :
"We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that they do not warrant acceptance. There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the of the 1872 Act once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of Section 91 then no 15 evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. According to illustration 'b' to Section 92 if there is absolute agreement in writing between the parties where one has to pay the other a principal sum by specified date then the oral agreement that the money was not to be paid till the specified date cannot be proved. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/ varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dated 24.9.2002 (A.7) has to be accepted and it cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity in reaching to the conclusion that the amount shown in the registered sale deed was received by the vendors and deserves to be added to the gross income of the assessee- appellant."
15. Similarly, in the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT V Chandni Bhuchar (2010) 323 ITR 510 (P&H), it has been held that purchase price, disclosed in the Sale Deed cannot be adopted as the purchase price, on the basis of valuation made by the Stamp Duty authority, for the purpose of stamp duty, within the contemplation of Section 50C of the Act. The addition made by the AO u/s 69B on unexplained investment in the property, cannot be based on the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Therefore, the apparent consideration disclosed by the Sale Deed, would remain un-rebutted, unless displaced by the credible documentary evidence. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana 16 High Court in the case of CI T V Satinder Kumar (2001) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) clearly held that AO is not competent to make addition in the absence of credible evidence, in respect of investment made over and above the consideration recorded in the Regd. Sale Deed. Thus, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has upheld sanctity of the consideration, as specified in the Registered Sale Deed.
15(i) Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V Motor & General Stores Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (S.C) held that, "It is, theref ore, obvious that it is not open to the Income Tax authorities to deduce the nature of the document f rom the purported intentions, by going behind the document or to consider the substance of the matter or to accept it in part and reject it in part or to re-write the document, merely to suit purpose of revenue." Further, the decision as quoted by the ld. CIT(A), in the case of K.P.Varghese V I TO 131 I TR 597 (S.C.) is also relevant, in the matter. Similarly, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT V P.V.Kalyanasundaram, 282 I TR 259 (Mad), it was upheld by the Supreme Court, as reported in 294 I TR 49 (S.C) is also relevant in the matter.
16. The sanctity of Registered Sale Deed, even in the face of Agreement to Sell, has been judicially upheld by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in the case of CI T V Smt. K.C.Agnes and Others (2003) 262 I TR 354, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that when a document shows fixed price, there will be a presumption that, that is correct price, 17 agreed upon by the parties. It is not necessary that the price stated in the Agreement will be the price shown in the Sale Deed. Sometimes, it may be higher and sometimes it may be lower. Even if, it is presumed to be so, unless it is proved that the Agreement was acted upon and unless the amount stated in the Agreement was paid for sale, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the price mentioned in the Sale Deed is not correct.
17. In view of the above legal and factual discussions, and having regard to the discussions by the ld. CI T(A), we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CI T(A) and, hence, the same are upheld.
18. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27 t h
Sept.,2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 27 t h Sept.,2012.
'Poonam'
Copy to:
The Appellant, The Respondent, The CI T(A), The CI T,DR Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh