PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act')challenging order dated 17.12.2008 (A.6) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for brevity 'The Tribunal') in ITA No. 373 ASR - 2007 in respect of assessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal while accepting the appeal of the Revenue has expressed the view that ostensible sale consideration of the land disclosed in the registered sale deed dated 24.9.2002 deserves to be added to the income of the assessee-appellant. The Tribunal has dis-regarded the statement made on affidavit by the vendor S/Shri Tirath Singh and Surmukh Singh, who are the real uncles of the assesse-appellant. They have stated in the affidavits that infact no sale consideration had passed hands and they had relinquished their share in the landed property. The object of executing sale deed was only to handover landed property to the assessee-appellant as they are well settled in United Kingdom since 1960's and 1970's. After the case was remanded back to the CIT(A), a report was obtained by the CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid affidavits filed by the vendor. The Assessing Officer asked Tirath Singh son of Pakhar Singh certain questions. The answer to question Nos. 5 and 6 are extracted below for ready reference:

(2.) Likewise, identical questions were asked to Surmukh Singh who has given the same answers. The CIT(A) had accepted the version of the assessee-appellant as is evident from the order dated 17.2.2006 (A.11). However, on appeal to the Tribunal the views expressed by the CIT(A) has not been accepted. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from the following extracts of its order which reads thus:

(3.) Mr. Ravish Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the arrangement made between the father of the assessee-appellant and both his uncles should have been given due credence as was rightly done by the CIT(A) and once his uncles have stated on oath that no consideration has passed to them then it should not be imagined that the amount has passed hands which is hidden income of the assessee-appellant and therefore liable to be added. The learned Counsel has pointed out that in the account of the assessee-appellant the amount remained deposited is not more than few thousands at any time and such a huge amount of over 24 Lacs could not have been paid by him.