Blog

Case Title:-PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-10 Versus SMT. RASHMI RAJIV MEHTA

Case No:-ITA 984/2019

Decided on:-04-03-2024

Quorum:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Facts of the case:-

The instant appeals concern Assessment Year [“AY”] 2010–11. The case began when the Assessing Officer [“AO”] received information in the form of a photocopy of an alleged a sale agreement dated March 5, 2010. According to the aforementioned hardcopy of the sale agreement, the assesse would be considered a co-purchaser and the land in Ghittorni, Delhi, would be acquired for a total value of Rs. 11,00,00,000/-. According to the allegations, the assesse paid an advance of Rs. 2,75,00,000, or 25% of the total cost for the purchase of the aforementioned land. A check for Rs. 1,38,00,000 was claimed to have been made out of the total amount specified and the  remaining sum or Rs. 1,37,00,000/- was purportedly paid in cash at the time the aforementioned sale agreement was executed. In light of the aforementioned, the assesse received a notice on September 26, 2014, in accordance with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the “Act”]. It appears that on November 07, 2014, the assesse filed the Income Tax Return [“ITR”], stating that their total income for the academic year 2010–11 was Rs. 44,676. As a result, the assesse was the subject of legal action brought under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), utilizing the photocopy of the aforementioned sale agreement and the assessment order dated March 28, 2016 among other things added Rs. 9,00,00,000/-to the revenue of the assesse due to the acquisition of the aforementioned land from unidentified sources. The assesse filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in opposition to the decision made by the AO. [“CIT(A)”]. By order dated December 15, 2017, the CIT(A) limited the addition of Rs. 9,00,00,000/-to Rs. 1,37,00,000/-on the grounds that only the aforementioned amount can be linked to the assesses income for the applicable AY. The CIT(A) did not however, question the authenticity of the photocopy of the purported agreement to sell. The Revenue and the assesse both filed cross appeals with the ITAT as a result of the CIT(A)’s order. The assesses appeal to the ITAT, ITA No. 3643/Del/2018, was against the removal of Rs. 7,63,00,000/- whereas the Revenue’s appeal, ITA No. 4398/Del/2018, was against the Consistent increase of INR 1,37,000,000. By common order issued May 28, 2019 the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal while allowing the assesses appeal.

Contentions:-

The learned counsel of the petitioner states that the AO, on the other hand, while relying on the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell, proceeded to make an Addition treating the consideration to be Rs.11,00,00,000/-. The AO Held that the genuineness of the said document cannot be denied as the signatures of the relevant parties in the aforesaid agreement resembles with the signatures of the assesse and therefore, it has been presumed that the assesse had no explanation to offer in that regard. The learned counsel of the respondent states that the assesses stand was to the effect that the said land was purchased against a consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/-

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

Court states that the entire foundation is laid on the basis of the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell dated 5 March 2010. The original copy of the said document has not seen the light of the day. Further, there is no other evidence to support the veracity of the recitals made in the aforesaid alleged agreement. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, the same cannot be construed to be a sustainable ground for making addition to the income of the assesse. We thus, find that these appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. The ITAT has rightly opined that under the facts of the present cases sustaining an addition on the basis of photocopy of alleged agreement to sell would be completely unwarranted and unjustifiable. The appeals are therefore, dismissed. Pending Application(s), if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement