Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

1. Three questions have been canvassed before us by learned Counsel for the Revenue. The first is with regard to the deletion by the Tribunal of an addition of Rs. 1,79,435, allegedly being unexplained deposits in the accounts of the assessee/respondent. According to the assessee, she had purchased two plots of land, one of which was sold in the year 1989 and the second in January, 1991. It is the second plot with which we are concerned; the sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 was received by cheque and after deduction of bank commission the aforementioned sum of Rs. 1,79,435 was credited to the assessee''s account. The Tribunal has noted that declaration for the purpose of capital account, in Form 2B, has been made by the assessee on this transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied since the transaction was through banking channels. There was no justification for the said addition. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has laboured upon the fact that the documents of conveyance were not found in order.

2. This Court ought not to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal unless these are perverse in nature. [See K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, : Shri K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam, ]. We find no perversity in the conclusion.

3. The second question pertains to the valuation of certain properties, of which the relevant documents were found in the course of a search. The AO made an addition of Rs. 4,56,450 by treating the difference between the valuation of the assessee and that carried out at his behest. The Tribunal has discussed the valuation in respect of each of the properties and has accepted the assessee''s valuation. It has noted that the Department has failed to collect any information or material to show that any consideration above and beyond the stated sale consideration had changed hands. It applied the dictum in K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another, which lays the burden to establish the factum of the assessee having received more than what is declared or disclosed by him as a consideration on the Revenue. The Tribunal has opined that the investments shown by the assessee stand fully corroborated by documentary evidence. We find no error in the approach of the Tribunal. This is also essentially a determination of facts which we must abjure from entering upon.

4. Thirdly, learned Counsel for the Revenue has assailed the deletion by the Tribunal of an addition of Rs. 2,00,000 also, being alleged as unexplained deposits in the bank account of the assessee. It is uncontrovertible that this amount had been shown in the return for asst. yr. 1996-97, that is, prior to the issuance of notice u/s 158BC. The version of the assessee is that the plot was purchased on 16th Dec., 1991 for Rs. 1,95,000. According to learned Counsel for the Revenue, it is inconceivable that this property would have been sold on the very same year for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. All these monies have been transacted through banking channels. The gain of Rs. 5,000 has been shown in the return for asst. yr. 1996-97. Moreover, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the address and particulars of the purchaser had been furnished by the assessee but the AO made no inquiries. As in the other two cases the controversy centres around the questions of fact. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal on the third ground also.

5. It may be relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court, comprising Dr. Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain, JJ., as their Lordships then were, reiterated that there must be a finding of the Revenue that the assessee had received amounts over and above the consideration stated in the sale deeds, following Varghese (supra). Varghese had also been followed and applied by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Godavari Corpn. Ltd., . The Division Bench of this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri. Ashok Khetrapal, referred to the report of a Valuation Officer in the absence of any incriminating documents found in the course of a search. The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manoj Jain, is also to the same effect. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., their Lordships have once again reiterated that the onus whether the assessee had received more consideration than what was stated in the documents of transfer rested on the Revenue and in the absence of that burden being discharged it would be legally impermissible to make any inferences against the assessee.

6. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed.