SATYAVEER SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ROOP SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

Facts

The assessee, Satyaveer Singh, is appealing an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, dated October 13, 2021. The dispute arose from cash deposits of Rs. 19,00,500 made by the assessee in SBBJ Bank, Jaipur Branch. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued a notice under Section 148, leading to the reopening of assessment. An addition of Rs. 12,22,000 was made to the assessee's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The ITAT also dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that evidence indicated the sale consideration for agriculture land was Rs. 6.75 lacs, rejecting the assessee's claim of Rs. 20,80,000.

Held

The Tribunal's finding that the sale consideration for the agriculture land was Rs. 6.75 lacs, and not Rs. 20,80,000 as claimed by the assessee, was upheld. The Tribunal considered both oral and documentary evidence. It placed significant reliance on the recital in the registered sale deed, which clearly stated the sale consideration as Rs. 6.75 lacs. While the valuation for stamp duty was considered, the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority, and ITAT reached a concurrent finding based mainly on the sale deed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not claim the entire sale consideration was transferred via cheque, but rather involved cash deposits, thus placing the burden on the assessee to prove the higher consideration. The Court found that the case primarily involved appreciation of evidence and did not raise a substantial question of law. Therefore, the Court declined to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that the sale consideration for the agriculture land was Rs. 6.75 lacs, as opposed to Rs. 20,80,000 claimed by the assessee, is perverse and opposed to law? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and appreciation of evidence related to sale consideration). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the registered sale deed, which recited a sale consideration of Rs. 6.75 lacs, was contradicted by oral evidence from other shareholders/owners and the registered sale deed itself, which exhibited market value and stamp duty proportionate to the claimed income of Rs. 20,80,000. The assessee contended that the Tribunal relied on the seller's statements without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard and wrongly treated the difference as income chargeable to tax. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the revenue. However, the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and the Tribunal suggest reliance on the registered sale deed and its recitals as primary evidence of the sale consideration.