IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 57 of 2004 C I T UDAIPUR V/S KANHAIYA LAL 2.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 58 of 2004 C I T UDAIPUR V/S MOHAN LAL GURNANI 3.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 127 of 2005 C I T UDAIPUR V/S SMT. LEELA DEVI Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. DINESH MEHTA & Mr. LALEET PAREEK, for the respondents. Date of Order : 5.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- These three appeals have been filed against a common judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 13.6.2003, allowing the appeals of the three assessees, and deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were confirmed by the learned C.I.T.(Appeals). The necessary facts are, that block assessment of the three assessees was made, for the period 1989-90 to 1998-99. The background facts are, that search and seizure operations were conducted on the premises of certain persons, which have been referred in the impugned order, as premises of ‘Nabi Group’, at Chittorgarh on 12.3.1998, during which certain documents were found and seized. Panchnama was prepared. Documents included an agreement of sale of the property, called Indore Coffee House at Chittorgarh, which was sold by three assessees Kanhaiyalal Gurnani, Mohanlal Gurnani and Smt. Leela Devi to Akhtar Hussain, Iqbal Hussain and Akram Hussain (Nabi Group). This agreement is said to be dated 28.2.1996, and purported to be an agreement to sale the property for a price of Rs. 18,71,001/-, while the property was sold vide three registered sale deeds for a total value of Rs. 3 lacks, i.e. for Rs. one lack, by each of the assessees. On these facts, the assessing officer made a total addition of Rs. 15,71,001/-, being the difference amount between the price shown in the registered sale deed and the agreement, said to have been recovered during search, and divided the amount between the three assessees in equal shares. This addition was confirmed, as is observed above, by the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), which was challenged in further appeal before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeals, by finding, in the detailed impugned judgment, running into 53 pages, interalia, that the agreement found is not a complete document. The other two papers did not appear to form part 2 of this agreement. Apart from that, they are not signed, and other various attending circumstances were appreciated, and noticed, by the learned Tribunal. The appeals were admitted by this Court by framing following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 5,23,667/- made by the Assessing Officer as share of the assessee in the concealed sale consideration and the findings reached by the Tribunal in this connection are perverse?” When, the appeals came up for hearing on 18.1.2008, record was ordered to be requisitioned, in order to see the originals of the papers, which are said to have been seized, during the course of search. After receipt of the record, on 1.7.2008, the matter was further heard, and during course of hearing it occurred, that since it was a case of transaction of purchase and sale, and the amount involved, being very huge, being more than Rs. 15 lacks, and since the purchasers are also the regular assessees, on whose premises search and seizure operations were conducted, a query was put to the learned counsel for the Revenue, as to what had been the outcome of the block assessment proceedings, against the purchasers. The query was raised, obviously in view of the 3 fact, that if the property was sold for Rs. 18,71,000/-, as alleged, in that event, the amount of Rs. 18,71,000/- must have reached from purchaser to seller. Thus the amount must also have been assessed in the hand of the purchaser, as undisclosed income, during the block period. It is obvious that in a transaction of purchase and sale, the sale consideration does proceed from the purchaser, and reaches the seller, and it cannot be conceived, that any amount of sale price would be received by the seller, without the amount moving from the purchaser. Thereupon the case was adjourned to be listed on 2.7.2008, and the matter is now heard today. Today, learned counsel for the Revenue fairly pointed out to us, that the block assessment of the assessees, being the purchasers were made, and identical additions were made in their income by the learned Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals). In further appeal the learned Tribunal, vide judgment dt. 22.12.2006, had deleted the addition, while deciding ground no.2 in para-5, 6 and 7 of the judgment. Learned counsel made available for our perusal, the photo- stat copy of the said judgment. From perusal of the judgment it transpires that in para-7 the learned Tribunal has found as under:- 4 “It is evident from the alleged sale agreement, a copy of which is placed in the paper book, that it is not a complete document, as it has not been signed on the last pages and is not properly in continuation. The assertion of the ld. A.R. that the draft agreement was a tactics employed by the vendor, which was aimed at getting the property in question vacated from the Insurance Company, to our mind, seems to be plausible. An incomplete agreement may have been drafted to mount pressure on the insurance company only. This fact finds support from the statement of Shir Akhtar Hussain that the purchase price of this property is only Rs.3,00,000/-. After perusing the loose-papers viz., pages Nos.5 to 8 of Annexure-33, Shri Akhatar Hussain made it clear that only after obtaining photocopy of these pages he could reply the exact nature of these papers. He also agreed to pay taxes if found due thereon. The affidavits of the sellers and the purchasers besides the other attending circumstances of this case cumulatively go to establish that the so called conclusive statement of Shri Akhtar Hussain which stands disproved by way of evidence on record, cannot be made a basis for impugned addition. In our considered opinion, the so-called agreement is not a valid document in the eyes of the law. Therefore, this document cannot be made a basis for any addition in this account. To the contrary, the registered sale-deeds are self-speaking version, which has not been disproved by any evidence on record. Any addition made simply on the basis of a statement cannot be sustained unless it is further corroborated by some evidence, either found during the course of search or from other records. It is true that this alleged agreement was seized from the possession of the assessee during the course of search and some of the pages of this document are on stamp papers. But in the registered sale deeds, there is no mention of this agreement. A property, which is in the possession of the tenant, usually fetches lesser sale-price. The stamp duty charges cannot be relevant for determining the exact sale consideration. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the above discussions is that the assumed price, on the basis of incomplete and irrelevant document, cannot be sustained. Hence, we delete the 5 impugned addition and allow ground No.2 of this appeal.” A reading of above para-7 make it more than clear, that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the statement of Akhtar Hussain, that the purchase price of the property is only Rs. 3,00,000/-. It has also been found, that the so called agreement is not a valid document in the eyes of the law, and therefore, it cannot be made basis, for any addition on this account, rather the registered sale deeds are self speaking version, which has not been disproved by any evidence on record. Admittedly no appeal has been filed against this judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 22.12.2006, and it has acquired finality. This being the factual position, when the matter has become final by the judgment of the learned Tribunal, in the appeals of the purchasers, to the effect, that the property was purchased for a sale price of Rs. 3 lacks only, our undertaking any exercise in the present appeals, would be an attempt to come to the conclusion, that the sale price was not correct, and it would be likely to give rise to contradictory situation, which in our view cannot be said to be permitted by law. 6 In that view of the matter, it cannot now be said, that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, in these appeals, are perverse. Thus no substantial question of law survives, requiring to be answered. As a result of aforesaid discussion, these appeals are dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/ 7