COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. P V KALYANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed under Section 260a of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order passed in I. T (SS ). A. No. 1 18/mds/2001, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'd' Bench raising the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) THE facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:

(3.) WE heard the counsel. The seller had initially given conflicting statement about the sale consideration he received. When confronted by the Revenue on 11. 12. 1998, the seller admitted that he had deposited Rs. 4. 10 lakhs received through draft in the bank and the rest amount was held by him in cash. The Revenue authorities could well have seized the cash invoking Section 132 of the Act, but for obvious reasons this was not done. Had the cash been seized from the seller, the matter would have been concluded in favour of the Revenue. In a subsequent submission, the seller claimed on 20. 11. 2000 that he had paid Rs. 15 lakhs out of the sale proceeds to settle old family debts, Rs. 4. 80 lakhs for construction of house in Pullkasi village and the balance was advanced to parties for keeping Rs. 2 lakhs and rs. 3 lakhs in the house for family expenses and educational expenses of his daughter, respectively. It was also noted that the revised return was filed by the seller wherein he had shown approximately Rs. 2. 5 lakhs being available with him in cash. Even after giving the retraction and admitting that he had sold the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 4. 10 lakhs, the seller filed his I. T. Return on 28. 01. 2000 wherein he did not admit the cash on money consideration for the sale transaction. Subsequently he revised the I. T. Return wherein he admitted the sale consideration and showing Rs. 4. 80 lakhs out of the above as utilised for construction of residential house property and consequently claiming exemption under Section 54, the seller filed the computation of income paying Rs. 1,83,576/- as tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements given by the seller and the conflicting I. T. Returns filed by him that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax was nothing but an obvious effort to save from further harassment from the Revenue and escape from the exigibility of tax on undisclosed income of the cash consideration under Section 158 bd of the Act, which in magnitude would far exceed the tax paid by him. The burden of proving actual consideration in such transaction was that of revenue. The Tribunal had given factual finding and held as follows: