PRATYUSHA CHANDRA SUBUDHI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

It was the submission that as the conversion could not be done within the time, the agreement was renegotiated and a fresh agreement was entered into on 30.5.2015, wherein, the sale consideration was recorded at Rs.3,80,00,000/-. The agreement dated 30.5.2015 reads as follows: “

It was the submission that a sale deed was also entered into on 29.6.2015 at a consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/- reads as follows:

It was the submission that the second agreement having been entered into on 30.5.2015, the validity of the agreement entered into on 28.11.2014 no more survive and it is the second agreement which should be considered. It was the further submission that the Sub-Registrar also accepted the sale consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/- and no adverse inference is liable to be drawn. It was the submission that it was only because the condition mentioned in the original agreement was followed insofar as the conversion of the land from leasehold to freehold has not been done by the seller, it was then the assessee had renegotiated the price to Rs.3,80,00,000/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and on the basis of the first agreement entered into by the assessee at Rs.5,20,00,000/- brought to tax the difference of Rs.1,40,00,000/- as the unexplained investment made by the assessee. It was the submission that the Revenue does not have any evidence to show that the assessee has paid such Rs.1,40,00,000/- to the seller. It was the prayer that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that no cancellation of the original agreement has been shown by the assessee. He vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the agreement for sale dated 28.11.2014 shows that the sale deed is notorised and the name of the notary in the sale deed is also available. The same also shows Sl. No., date as also the name and address parties. A perusal of the second agreement dated 30.5.2015 shows that the Sl.No. and details of the notary are clearly vague and Sl. No. is not marked at all. A perusal of the agreement to sale deed dated 28.11.2014 shows that in clause -2, there is requirement of the first party to pursue the application for conversion in the G.A. Department for early conversion of the plot from leasehold to freehold. A perusal of the sale deed more specifically at pages 5 & 6 of the sale deed shows that the said property has been converted to freehold by an order dated 19.3.2015. Thus, the claim of the assessee that a fresh agreement has been entered into on 30.5.2015 because the conversion had not been done is false. A perusal of the agreement for sale deed dated 28.11.2014, which is showing the consideration amount of Rs.5,20,00,000/- is a much more detailed agreement whereas the agreement dated 30.5.2015 shows the same as just agreement to specify the figure of Rs.3,80,00,000/-. A perusal of the sale deed clearly shows that the valuation of the property as per the Government rate is Rs.3,80,00,000/-. Thus, clearly the second agreement dated 30.5.2015 has been created only after fixing the government rate required for registering the property. The original agreement admittedly for Rs.5,20,00,000/- is clearly the main agreement, which is the very foundation for the sale of the property. A perusal of the agreement dated 28.11.2014 also shows that the same contains the mobile numbers of various persons involved whereas the second agreement shows to be entered into on 30.5.2015 have no details whatsoever. It becomes clear that the second agreement dated 30.5.2015 has been created only for the purpose of an agreement of creating evidence to respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the original agreement for sale entered into on 28.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.5,20,00,000/-. The claim of ld AR that the Revenue has not brought out any evidence to substantiate the amount of Rs.5,20,00,000/- does not stand insofar as it is the assessee who has entered into the agreement for purchase of the property and it is the assessee who has knowledge of this agreement dated 28.11.2014 but unfortunately this came to the knowledge of the revenue only on account of tax evasion petition. It may also be mentioned here that in the agreement dated 30.5.2015, the signature of the assessee is missing and only his name is written whereas agreement dated 28.11.2014 contains the signature of the assessee. All these clearly show that the actual sale consideration of Rs.5,20,00,000/- is as per the original sale agreement dated 28.11.2014 and not Rs.3,80,00,000/- as per the second agreement of sale deed dated 30.5.2015 or sale deed dated 29.6.2015. This being so, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands upheld.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/02/2026.