COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUNITA MAKHIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") is filed against the order dated 27/3/2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") relating to the block period 1/4/1997 to 29/1/2003. The appellant has formulated the following questions of law for the consideration of this court.

(2.) A search was conducted under Section 132 of the said Act at the residential premises of the respondent. Consequent to the search, the respondent filed return of income on 12/11/2012 for the block period 1/4/1996 to 29/1/2003. During the course of the search a paper was seized in the handwriting of the father of the respondent assessee inter alia showing the property Candy house valued at Rs.80.00 lacs while the respondent assessee had shown the purchase price of the property at Candy house for a consideration of Rs.71.35 lacs. Consequent to the above, while passing an assessment order for the block period the Assessing officer treated the difference between Rs.80.00 lacs and Rs.71.35 lacs of Rs.8.65 lacs as undisclosed income of the assessee for the assessment year 2003 -04 and sought to tax the same. The CIT (Appeals) by an order dated 18/8/2005 allowed the appeal of the respondent -assessee and held that the amount of Rs.8.65 lacs cannot be held to be undisclosed income of the respondent as amount of Rs.80.00 lacs shown in respect of the flat at Candy House was for the purpose of division of property in the family. The Tribunal by its order dated 27/3/2008 upheld the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal held that there was no evidence on record to prove that any cash had been paid by the respondent -assessee over and above the document at consideration of Rs.71.35 lacs to purchase the property at Candy House. Further the noting on the paper were in the handwriting of the father of the respondent -assessee and not of the assessee herself.

(3.) WE find that prior to the order of assessment the respondent by her letter dated 27/1/2005 had informed the department that the figure of Rs.80.00 lacs mentioned in the note was the resale value of the premises at Candy House and the same was noted by her father as a rough measure for the division of property and the family assets in the family. The appellant - revenue has not been able to bring on record other evidence in support of its contention that the amount in excess of Rs.7.35 lacs was paid for the purchase of Candy House property. The document found during the search at the respondent assessee's premises in the handwriting of the respondent's father has been explained satisfactorily viz. that it is the resale value of the property and the figures were recorded only for the purpose of distribution of the property within the family. The aforesaid findings are pure findings of fact and the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently held that no cash consideration in excess of Rs.71.35 lacs was paid for the purchase of the property. The aforesaid findings are not alleged to be perverse. Consequently no substantial question of law arises. Therefore, question (A) is dismissed. Re -Question (B):