High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.I.T. v. S.C.Jain - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 55 of 1992  RD-AH 1201 (2 May 2005)
Income Tax Reference No. 55 of 1992
Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Prop. M/s Rishab Agencies, Chippi Tank, Meerut.
Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court:-
"Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct to confirm the order of A.A.C. deleting the additions of Rs. 15,900/- and Rs. 7,435/- made by the ITO as income from undisclosed sources?"
The present Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1982-83.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:
The respondent-assessee purchased a house for Rs. 18,000/- from Shri H.C.Goel and Smt. Vimla Goel. An agreement to sell was executed on the 9th of June, 1981 and the sale deed was executed on 15th April, 1983. There was a search at the premises of the said vendors on the 5th of June, 1984 and Shri H.C.Goel is said to have stated that the various purchasers, to whom he sold land that was covered by the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act had paid him ''on money' and had incurred the development charges. On that basis in spite of a denial by the respondent assessee, the Income Tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 15,900/- as the alleged ''on money' and Rs. 7,435/- as expenditure on development as unexplained investment. The respondent appealed to the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that there was no evidence to corroborate the statement of Shri H.C.Goel and, he, therefore, deleted the addition. The Tribunal has upheld the order of the appellate Assistant Commissioner on the following grounds:
"The agreement to sell dated 9th June, 1981 is a regiswtered document and mentions the consideration at Rs. 18,000/- only. The sale deed also mentions the same. These are documents executed by H.C.Goel and in the face of these documents it would be unsafe to accept any uncorroborated statement of H.C.Goel. I am, therefore, in agreement of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the case of payment of on money and of incurring higher development charges was not properly made out. I, therefore, confirm the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner."
We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Sri M.Manglik has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent.
We find that this Court in I.T.R. No. 1 of 1993 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Uma Rastogi) decided on 10th March, 2005 has upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the similar facts and circumstances of the case.
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this Court we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.