Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
K.S. Jhaveri, Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appellant
Versus
Shri Prabhati Lal Saini - Respondent
Income Tax Appeal Nos. 140, 141, 143, 144, 148, 150, 151 and 157 of 2014 and230 of 2016
Decided On : 19-09-2017
CAPITAL GAINS - Addition of on-money received on sale of land - Incriminating documents, admission of key persons, and valuation report - Interpretation and application of relevant provisions.
Fact of the Case:
During a search and seizure operation, incriminating documents suggesting on-money payment were found at the assessee's premises. The assessee sold agricultural land to various purchasers. The Revenue added capital gains based on the valuation report and statements recorded under section 132(4). The Tribunal deleted the addition.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the incriminating documents, statements, and valuation report were not sufficient to prove the receipt of on-money. It relied on the settlement commission's order, which had found that the rates adopted by the department were not acceptable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was an illiterate person and that no cash was found during the search.
Issues: 1. Whether the incriminating documents, statements, and valuation report were sufficient to prove the receipt of on-money. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of capital gains.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal's findings were based on appreciation of facts and that no interference was called for. It noted that the Tribunal had considered all the evidence and had given cogent reasons for its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objection.
JUDGMENT
K.S. Jhaveri, J. - In all these appeals since identical questions of law and facts are involved, they are decided by this common judgment. For the convenience of the court, we have taken facts from Income Tax Appeal No. 140/2014.
2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee.
3. This court while admitting the appeals framed the following question of law:-
1. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 140/2014
Whether ITAT is perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 67,49,680/- on account of Capital gains, ignoring the incriminating documents seized from the residence of the assessee and other persons, admission of key persons of the Group under section 132(4) and the valuation report of the DVO proving that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee.
2. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 141/2014
"Whether the order of Tribunal is perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 69,12,400/- on account of capital gains on sale of land, ignoring the incriminating documents seized, admission of the key persons of the Group under section 132 (4), and the valuation report of the DVO, which proved that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee?
3. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 143/2014
"Whether ITAT is perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,81,215/- on account of Capital gains, ignoring the incriminating documents seized from the residence of the assessee and other persons, admission of key persons of the Group under section 132(4) and the valuation report of the DVO proving that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee."
4. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 144/2014
"Whether ITAT is perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,91,863/- on account of Capital gains, ignoring the incriminating documents seized from the residence of the assessee and other persons, admission of key persons of the Group under section 132(4) and the valuation report of the DVO proving that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee."
5. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 148/2014
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon''ble Tribunal has not acted perversely in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,19,82,789/- on account of long term capital gain, ignoring the incriminating documents seized from the residence of assessee and other persons, admission of key persons of the Group under section 132(4) and the valuation report of the DVO proving that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee?"
6. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 150/2014
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon''ble Tribunal has not acted perversely in deleting the addition of Rs. 77,20,722/- on account of long term capital gain, ignoring the incriminating documents seized from the residence of assessee and other persons, admission of key persons of the Group under section 132(4) and the valuation report of the DVO proving that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon''ble Tribunal has not acted perversely in not deciding the ground relating to deletion of addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits?"
7. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 151/2014
"Whether ITAT is perverse in deleting the addition of Rs. 67,26,150/- on account of Capital gains, ignoring the incriminating documents seized from the residence of the assessee and other persons, admission of key persons of the Group under section 132(4) and the valuation report of the DVO proving that on-money was received on sale of land by the assessee."
8. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 157/2014
&"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon''ble Tribunal has not acted perversely in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,26,725/- on account of long term capital gain, ignoring the incriminating documents se
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
