Held that the names of the assessee and her husband neither appeared in the agreement for sale nor they appended their signatures in the said document. Said document namely, the agreement of sale bears signatures of three persons out of six persons in the first two pages and does not bear the signatures of witnesses and the sellers. Such an incomplete document cannot have any evidentiary value in the eye of law and cannot be relied upon while making addition. The assessee was never allowed to cross examine the seller of the land. Addition is deleted. Tribunal also held that the assessee was never a party to the deal as per the alleged agreement for sale, no addition can be made for alleged interest. The Tribunal also held that reassessment has been done due to incorrect recording of facts hence the reassessment also quashed. (AY. 2011-12)
ACIT v. Bhavnaben Bhovanbhai Rangani (Smt) (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 1535 /(2024) 162 taxmann.com 392 / 228 TTJ 21 (Rajkot)(Trib) Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani v. ACIT ((2023) 37 NYPTTJ 1535 /(2024) 162 taxmann.com 392 / 228 TTJ 21 (Rajkot)(Trib)
S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account-Alleged on money-Land-Agreement to sale-Agreement is not acted upon-Opportunity of cross examination is not granted-Addition is deleted-Reassessment-Incorrect facts-Reassessment is quashed. [S. 133A, 147, 148]
Leave a Reply