Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

dated 22.12.2007. Entire purchase consideration was paid to the GPA holder, Shri P.Mahender, by way of uncrossed cheques in his name. The Assessing Officer noted that there was survey action under S.133A of the Act, in the case of one Shri P.Krishna on 21.2.2008. During the said survey it came to the light through a paper, containing certain scribbling with regard to various real estate transactions that the land purchased by the assessee has been actually sold to the assessee society for a total consideration of Rs.99,23,520, and not Rs.19,35,000. Statement of Shri P.Krishna was also recorded during the survey on 21.2.2008. The Assessing Officer proceeding on the basis of the said paper found at the time of survey, observed that there was excess money paid by the society to the seller of the land over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer provided the copies of the statements of Shri P.Manender and Shri P.Krishna alongwith the relevant information available with him to the assessee for its comments/explanation. Assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that it did not have any dealings with P.Krishna, who was neither a seller nor a broker. It was claimed by the assessee that P.Mahender has been paid a total amount of Rs.25,45,000 on 22/24.10.2007, through a bearer cheque by individuals, on behalf of the society, due to non- availability of cash with the society, for the land admeasuring 15 acres. The vendor registered land admeasuring Ac.12.36 Guntas on 22.10.2007, for which the value adopted was Rs.19,35,000 and the registration expenditure worked out to Rs.1,83,920, with the total working out to Rs.21,18,920, which was adjusted from the amount paid by the individuals as mentioned above. The vendor, according to the assessee, not willing to refund back the remaining amount, registered further land admeasuring Ac.2.08 guntas the value therefor being Rs.3,65,000 and registration charges being Rs.61,080, with the total working out to Rs.4,26,080 in the name of Shri S.S.Prasad, the Chairman of the assessee society/trust. It was mentioned in the sale deed that for the balance amount for the purchase of land admeasuring Ac.2.08 Guntas, post dated cheques were given to the vendor as security, and those post dated cheques Social Action for Rural Education Health and Loving Life of Abundance Society, Hyderabad.

13. The Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities and submitted that the present appeal of the assessee is liable to be rejected, as the same is devoid of merit.

14. We heard both sides an perused the orders of the Revenue authorities and other material available on record. It is the addition made on account of undisclosed sale consideration paid by the assessee for the purchase of a land, which is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal. Apparent consideration paid as per the registered sale deed is only Rs.19,35,000, whereas during the course of survey action on the premises of one P.Krishna, who is stated to be brother-in-law of one Mahender, who is the G.P. holder of the land owners, a piece of paper containing certain scribblings relating to various land transactions, stating to be the land purchased by the assessee was unearthed. It is the case of the Revenue that according to the scribbling on the said paper, the consideration for the land purchased by the assessee was Rs.99,23,520 and not Rs.19,35,000 as revealed in the registered sale deed. In the first place, we find that survey action has taken place in the premises of P.Krishna, and not on the premises of the assessee. Whatever material is impounded, it is from the premises of P.Krishna, who was neither the owner of the property nor a person, Social Action for Rural Education Health and Loving Life of Abundance Society, Hyderabad.

with whom the assessee had any dealing in relation to the purchase of the property in question. Further, the assessee by letter dated 23.12.2010 requested for cross-examination of Mahender, who is the power of attorney holder. However, such an opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the Revenue authorities. Merely based on the statement made by a third party in the course of survey, which took place on his premises, and based on scribbling made on a piece of paper, which was found in the premises of that person, without bringing any corroborative material on record, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. The Madras High Court in the case of Khader and Sons (300 ITR 157) held that S.133A does not empower any IT authorities to examine any person on oath, and hence, any statement recorded in the course of such survey has no evidentiary value. In the circumstances, the statement recorded in the course of survey action under S.133A cannot by itself, be a basis for making any addition. Further, even though Mahender and Venkatesh were the AGPA holders, who have registered the sale documents dated 22.10.2007, the Assessing Officer chose to examine P.Mahender and another person, named Krishna related to Mahender as brother-in-law, but not Venkatesh. It is not known why Venkatesh, who stands on par with Mahender, has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. As already noted above, in the absence of opportunity of cross-examination being provided to the assessee, the statement of Krishna, just as that of Mahender, also cannot be relied.

paper containing certain scribbling, without any signatures, allegedly with regard to real estate transactions, and not any document having evidentiary value.

17. In this behalf, we are supported by the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of B.Ramakrishnaiah V/s. ITO(134 TTJ 600), wherein it has been held as follows-

"8.1. Without prejudice to the above, further we are of the opinion that statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act consequent to the survey action cannot be sole basis for addition unless there is a material to support the departmental case. In the survey, the department is not able to find out any corroborative evidence regarding the exact income earned by the assessee in these assessment years. The case of department hinges only and only on the surrender statement. It is well settled law that an addition, in order to be sustainable in a law, must have some concrete material evidence as its basis. It is not so here. If the assessee is doing the business of protecting the property and settling the dispute, the true result of that business to be ascertained. The end result of the trading activities to be brought into tax. Further, if any statement recorded from the assessee could be retracted by the assessee. Further, the CBTD on 10th March 2003, vide instructions F.No.286/2/2003/IT (Inv.) that while recording the statement in the course of search and seizure and survey operations, no attempt should be made to obtain confessions as to the undisclosed income; that any action to the contrary would be viewed adversely and that in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officer should rely upon the evidence and material gathered in the course of search/seizure operation and connected cases. In these circumstances, on confessions during the course of search and seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purposes. The CBDT instruction is binding on the department. In our opinion, addition on the basis of admission during the survey without any supportive material cannot be sustainable.