|CORAM:||Kul Bharat (JM), Vikram Singh Yadav (AM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||Undisclosed Income|
|DATE:||November 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||January 11, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 143(3): An addition towards income cannot be made merely on the basis of the statement of a third party that an amount has been paid to the assessee in the absence of conclusive evidence|
The AO made the addition on the basis of the statement of the seller of the land, who in his statement before the DDIT (Inv.) has stated that the sale consideration was at Rs. 2,10,000/- per bigha and he had received total sale consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The Counsel has not refuted the statement. However, he submitted that the statement was not bonafide but Shri Hanuman Yadav was black mailing the assessee. He submitted that interestingly the Revenue has accepted the sale consideration of the nearby vicinity. The CIT (A) affirmed the view of the AO in this respect. Now the issue which requires our consideration is whether the addition can be sustained solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav, when there is no material placed on record that Shri Hanuman Yadav has made any claim against the assessee in any court of law seeking cancellation of sale deed or filing a recovery suit. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal after following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court under the similar circumstances in Union of India vs. T. R. Verma 1957 SC 882 and Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) has held in the case of Ghanshyam Das Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1161/JP/2010 that in the absence of any conclusive evidence the document could not have been disbelieved. The D/R could not point out any binding precedent wherein it has been held that the oral statement would over ride the documentary evidence. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ghanshyam Das Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1161/JP/2010, we are of the view that the AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law. It is also not placed on record whether the sale deed was executed under coercion. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition.