Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai-2, dated 27.03.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 05.12.2015 admitting total income of ₹.6,51,270/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that “large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income and mismatch in sales turnover was reported in audit report and ITR. After considering the details furnished by the assessee in response to statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed by accepting the income returned.
On examination of records, the ld. PCIT observed that during the previous year 2013-14, the assessee had purchased a property for a consideration of ₹.1,00,00,000/- on 20.02.2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the transfer took place without actually settling the sale consideration and the sale deed was registered as if the entire amounts were paid. The assessee further claimed that only after the transfer, the assessee had availed loans by pledging the property and settled the dues to the seller on 29.05.2014 and 04.06.2014. Since the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not examined the source for purchase of the property during the course of the assessment proceedings leading to the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the assessee was show- caused vide notice dated 12.10.2018 posting the hearing on 29.10.2018. In response to the above notice, the assessee furnished a detailed letter dated 31.01.2019. After considering the contents in the letter filed by the assessee, provisions of the law and the materials available on record, the ld. PCIT has held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred under section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed him to frame the assessment after making necessary enquiries and verification in accordance with law.
On being aggrieved against the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that after conducting necessary verification by summoning the seller and recording his sworn statement by the Assessing Officer, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. It was further submission that the ld. PCIT has failed to note that there was no lack of enquiry and in fact, the Assessing Officer has already conducted adequate enquiry required for this case. It was further submission that the observations in the sale deed are rebuttable evidence and in this it has been rebutted with cogent evidence and accepted by the Assessing Officer and prayed for quashing the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that payment of entire sale consideration on the date of registration in cash was not an assumption but evidenced by registered sale deed dated 20.02.2014 and no other legal evidence was brought on record and thus, strongly supported the order passed under section 263 of the Act.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the paper book filed by the assessee. In this case, the assessee purchased the property for a consideration of ₹.1,00,00,000/- from the joint owners Shri Manikandan and Smt. Sooriyakala on 20.02.2014 through a registered deed dated 20.02.2014. On verification of the registered deed, the ld. PCIT has observed that at page 8 of the said sale deed, it was mentioned that a sum of ₹.1,00,000/- has been received in cash as advance on 23.01.2014 and the balance sum of ₹.99,00,000/- has been received in cash on the date of transfer i.e., 20.02.2014, being a primary evidence duly executed before a lawful authority signed by both the parties to the deed and witnessed by two witnesses which cannot be repudiated by any subsequent averment. It was further observed that part from ₹.1,00,000/- mentioned in the deed as advance, another sum of ₹.5,00,000/- was paid by the sellers on 14.02.2014 i.e., before the date of transfer through banking channel as part of sale consideration, which was admitted by the assessee and the sellers. It was the claim before the ld. PCIT that actually after pledging the property, the loan was availed from HDB Financial Services and the balance amount was settled by way of two cheques to the seller in two instalments of ₹.75,00,000/- and ₹.19,00,000/- on 29.05.2014 and 04.06.2014 respectively. However, the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that ₹.94,00,000/- paid after registration was without any substance as no one will register the property without receiving money based on mutual trust and it is against all human probabilities. The ld. PCIT further opined that the registered sale deed containing the fact of receipt of sum of ₹.99,00,000/- in cash as sale consideration on the date of registration of the sale deed is an un-rebuttable evidence for payment of the said sum by the assessee to the sellers.
6.1 We have gone through the paper book filed by the assessee containing written submissions, copy of sale deed, etc. The sale deed was registered on 20.02.2014 and at page 8 of the said sale deed, it was clearly mentioned that a sum of ₹.1,00,000/- has been received in cash as advance on 23.01.2014 and the balance sum of ₹.99,00,000/- has been received in cash on the date of transfer i.e., 20.02.2014, which is a primary concrete evidence duly executed before a lawful authority signed by both the parties to the deed and witnessed by two witnesses, which, in our opinion, cannot be repudiated by any subsequent averment. Further, we are also of the firm opinion that the registered sale deed is irrebuttable evidence before any Court of Law. There would not be any contrary evidence against the contents of the registered sale deed, otherwise, it would challenge the duties of the registering authority. No other piece of paper legally valid and contrary to the registered sale deed was brought on record. Mere sworn statement of seller on a plain paper is not a legally valid document against a document duly registered by an authority of the Government. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the oral evidence cannot be permitted to disprove the contents of the registered document. In this connection, the relevant provision of section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted as under: “92. Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement - When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying adding to, or subtracting from, its term:
6.2 From the above provisions of Indian Evidence Act, it is amply clear that no oral evidence can be permitted to disprove the contents mentioned in the registered document. Apart from the above, there is no relationship between the seller and the assessee to execute the sale deed on the date of registration without receiving consideration. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 27th October, 2021 in Chennai.