Madhukar Sakharam Latake,, Ahmednagar v. Tax Recovery Offier,,

ITA 1897/PUN/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 189724514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AFZPL1122J
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1897/PUN/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Madhukar Sakharam Latake,, Ahmednagar
Respondent Tax Recovery Offier,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 23-10-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE M S SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1897 /PN/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE SHIVAJI NAGAR DATTA CHOWK KARALE MALA KED GAON AHMEDNAGAR 414001 . APPELLANT PAN: AFZPL1122J VS. VS. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (IT) AHMEDNAGAR RANGE AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CHANDIP SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 - 0 4 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 0 4 - 201 5 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J M : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) - IT/ TP PUNE DATED 1 6 . 0 8 .201 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W .S. 14 7 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE DEED OF 12.6.2006 WAS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PIECES OF LAND SOLD IN 1993 AND 2005 WERE DIFFERENT AND IT IS NOT THE SALE OF SAME LAND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE REVENUE RECORDS AVAILABLE FROM WHICH IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE PIECE OF LAND SOLD IN 1998 AND 2006 WAS ONE AND THE SAME. 3) THE LEARNED CIT ( A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALREADY A LEGAL SUIT NO. 13 8/2011 WAS FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE HON . CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AHMEDNAGAR COURT AHMEDNAGAR FILED BY SOME PURCHASERS OF THE LAND ON 30.12.1998 PRAYING FOR ANNULMENT OF SALE DEED OF 12.6.2006 AND PASSING FOR 30.12.1998 PRAYING FOR ANNULMENT OF SALE DEED OF 12.6.2006 AND PASSING FOR RESTRAINING ORDERS IN RESPECT OF POSSESSION AGAINST THE PURCHASERS OF 12.6 . 2006. FROM THIS IT WAS CLEAR THAT ALREADY THE MATTER BEING IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF S ALE DEED OF 12.6.2006 AND IN RESPECT OF POSSESSION OF LAND IT IS ONE AND THE SAME LAND AND NOT TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF LAND. ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 2 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SALE DEED OF 12.6.2006 ONLY A FTER HE RECEIVED INCOME TAX NOTICES AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED FIR AND ALSO FILED SUIT AGAINST THE PERPETRATORS OF SALE DEED OF 12.6.2006 WITH THE HON JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AH M EDNAGAR COURT AHMEDNAGAR SUIT NO. 207/2013 PRAYING THAT THE SALE DEED O F 12.6.2006 MAY BE HELD AS ILLEGAL AND OTHER RELEVANT PRAYERS. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO ASSESSABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE BASIS OF SALE DEED DATED 12.06.2006. 4. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY ON 12.06.2006 JOINTLY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 LAKHS RECORDED REASONS FOR RE - OPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. PURSUANT THERETO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.03.2011. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.38 874/ - ON 14.11.2011. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS IN RECEIPT OF PENSION FROM CENTRAL RAILWAYS. IN REPLY TO THE QUERY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIS - - VIS THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON 1 2.06.2006 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 LAKHS AGAINST WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION WAS RS.50 56 000/ - THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD SOLD THE SAID LAND IN QUESTION ON 30.12.1998 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN AFFIDA VIT ALONG WITH COPIES OF SALE DEED TO ESTABLISH THE SALE ON 30.12.1998. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTION EFFECTED ON 12.06.2006 FOR SALE OF THE SAID LAND WAS FALSE AND IN SUPPORT THERETO AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AL ONG WITH COPY OF FIR LODGED IN POLICE STATION ON 14.11.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR NO.3 CLASS - 2 AHMEDNAGAR TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SALE DEEDS. IN RESPONSE THERETO JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR NO.3 CLAS S - 2 VIDE LETTER DATED ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 3 24.11.2011 CONFIRMED THAT THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 12.06.2006 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 LAKHS WAS VALID. IN RESPECT OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.12.1998 HE STATED THAT REGISTRATION NO.8722/01 WAS MADE BY THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR CLA SS - 2 AHMEDNAGAR (SOUTH) - 1 AND HENCE CLARIFICATION BE SOUGHT FROM HIM. THE SAID OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 25.11.2011 CONFIRMED THAT THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 30.12.1998 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS HAD BEEN FINALLY REGISTERED IN THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRA R CLASS - 2 AHMEDNAGAR (SOUTH) - 1 ON 30.06.2010 AND THE SAME WAS A VALID DOCUMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID COMMUNICATION THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD SOLD THE LAND AT SURVEY NO.66/1A K EDGAON TAL NAGAR DISTRICT AHMEDNAGAR ADMEASURING 1.97H ON WEST SIDE VIDE SALE DEED DATED 30.12.1998 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS ONLY LAND OWNED BY HIM WHICH WAS SOLD ON 30.12.1998 HENCE T HERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY FURTHER SALE OF LAND ONCE AGAIN. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND DOCUMENT EXECUTED ON 12.06.2006 THE AGAIN. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND DOCUMENT EXECUTED ON 12.06.2006 THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAID SALE DEED WAS NOT EXECUTED BY HIM AND IT WAS FRAUDULENTLY EXECUTED IN HIS NAME. HE ALSO POINTED OUT T HAT THE THUMB IMPRESSION ON THE SAID DOCUMENT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM AND HIS PHOTO THEREON WERE MANIPULATED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED ON RECORD ALONG WITH COPIES OF FIR LODGED BY HIM AND THE COURT CASE DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT BOTH THE SALE DEEDS DATED 30.12.1998 AND 12.06.2006 HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR OBSERVED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO TAX ANY CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND BY SALE DEED DATED 12.06.2006 WAS NOT CORRECT. IN VIEW THEREOF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.49 48 567/ - ON THE BASIS OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.50 56 000/ - BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 4 5. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD SOLD THE LAND IN 1998 AND LAND SOLD IN 2006 WAS FRAUDULENTLY SOLD. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD SOLD THE LAND IN 1998 HOWEVER THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED IN 2010 BY THE SUB - REGISTRAR. FURTHER THERE WAS ANOTHER REGISTRATION OF LAND IN 2006. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE COULD NOT BE TWO REGISTRATIONS OF THE SAME LAND ONCE IN 2006 AND AGAIN IN 2010 WHERE ACCORDING TO THE SUB - REGISTRAR BOTH THE DOCUMENTS WERE VALID. THE CIT(A) THUS CONCLUDED THAT BOTH PIECES OF LAND I.E. ONE SOLD IN 1998 AND ONE SOLD IN 2006 WERE DIFFERENT AND IT WAS N OT THE SALE OF SAME LAND AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROCEDURE OF REGISTRATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE REGISTRARS OFFICE REQUIRES PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE SE LLER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INITIATED ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER ASPECT NOTED BY THE CIT(A) WAS THAT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER ASPECT NOTED BY THE CIT(A) WAS THAT EVEN WHERE THE SELLER WAS PRESUMED TO BE FRAUDULENT THE PURCHASER WOULD BE GENUINE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GETTING POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN PURSUANT TO THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. SINCE THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED IN JUNE 2006 THE PURCHASER WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THE POSSESSION OF THE LA ND FROM THE ASSESSEE THEREIN AND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FRAUD ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT LETTERS TO THE SUB - REGISTRARS OFFICE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIR AND CIVIL SUIT S FILED WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) SINCE ALL THESE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ONLY AFTER INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT HAD INITIATED THE ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.49 48 567/ - . 6. THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 5 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER TAKING US THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE POINTED OUT THAT AFTER COMING INTO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAUDULENT TRANSACTION OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN 2006 THE ASSESSEE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A SUIT IN CIVIL COURT . IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN 1998 HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO 13 PURCHASERS WHO HAVE ALSO FILED THE CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE PURCHASERS NAMED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 12.06.2006. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED ON 30.12.1998 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 8 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREI N THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON STAMP PAPERS WHICH WERE PURCHASED ON 22.12.1998. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 13 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AND THE SURVEY NO.66/1A AD MEASURING 1.97H AND IS BOUNDED AS IN THE OTHER AGREEMENT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT BOTH THE AGREEMENTS TALKED OF THE SAME PIECE OF THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT BOTH THE AGREEMENTS TALKED OF THE SAME PIECE OF LAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT ONCE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.12.1998 WHERE IS T HE QUESTION OF ENTERING INTO ANOTHER AGREEMENT IN 2006. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH APPEARING ON THE SAID DOCUMENT HAS BEEN MISUSED BY THE PERSONS WHO ARE THE WITNESSES TO THE SAID AGREEMENT AND EVEN THE THUMB IMPRESSION ON THE ALLEGED DOCUMENT TO BE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR AT TENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SUIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID PURCHASERS AND WITNESSES COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 64 ONWARDS. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE SUIT FILED BY 13 PURCHASERS UNDER FIRST SALE DEED DATED 30.12.1998 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 46 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 6 THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL IN 1998 BUT THE SAID DEAL WAS FINALIZED IN 2010 WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES AND THE SUB - REGISTRAR C ONFIRMED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS VALID. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFER HAD RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM AIR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 12.06.2006 WHICH IS ALSO A VALID DOCUMENT AS CONFIRMED BY THE SUB - REGISTRAR. THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS COOLLY TYPE OF PERSON WORKING FOR RAILWAYS. THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE WAS COOLLY TYPE OF PERSON WORKING FOR RAILWAYS. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY OWNED LAN D BEARING SURVEY NO.66/1A MEASURING 1.97H. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO 13 PURCHASERS VIDE SALE DEED DATED 30.12.1998 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 8 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGES 22 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECTS THAT THE STAMP PAPERS FOR RS.19 500/ - WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.12.1998 AND THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 30.12.1998. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPE RTY IN THE SALE DEED IS SURVEY NO.66/1A MEASURING 1.97H AAKAR R.7.34 PAISE . O UT OF TOTAL AREA PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE HAVING AREA ADMEASURING 96.5 R AS BOUNDED ON EAST SIDE BY SURVEY NO.66/1 PART ON SOUTH SIDE BY SURVEY NO.65 ON WEST SIDE BY SURVEY NO.62 AND ON NORTH SIDE BY SURVEY NO.67 WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS IN CASH TO 13 PURCHASERS. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED IN 1998 AND THE FINAL SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED BY THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR CLASS - 2 ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 7 AHMEDNAGAR (SOUTH) - 1 ON 30.06.2010. THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR VIDE LETTER DATED 25.11.2011 CONFIRMED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT REGISTERED ON 30.06.2010 WAS A VALID DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN INFORMATION THROUGH AIR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD ONE PIECE OF LAND FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12 LAKHS ON 12.06.2006 JOINTLY AND THE STAMP VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.50 56 000/ - . PURSUANT TO THE RECEIPT OF SUCH INFORMATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR RE - OPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.38 870/ - . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT HE POSSESS ED ONLY ONE PIECE OF LAND WHICH HE HAD SOLD ON 30.12.1998 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS. THE SECOND SALE DEED DATED 12.06.2006 WAS FRAUDULENTLY EXECUTED BY PERSONS KNOWN TO HIM WHO HAD MISUSED EVEN HIS PHOTOGRAPHS AND HAD AFFIXED THUMB IMPRESSION AS E VIDENCE OF THE AGREEMENT BEING EXECUTED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID THUMB IMPRESSION WAS NOT BEING EXECUTED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID THUMB IMPRESSION WAS NOT HIS AND THE PERSONS HAD MISUSED AND HAD EXECUTED THE DOCUMENT WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. ON COMING TO KNOW OF THE ABOVE SAID FRAUDULENT FACTS THE ASSESSEE L ODGED AN FIR ON 14.11.2011. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED INCOME - TAX OFFICE ON 14.11.2011 ALONG WIT H AN AUTHORIZED COUNSEL. ON THE SAID DATE ITSELF HE HAD FILED FIR. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT BEARING NO.1477/13 ON 04.04.2013 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 64 TO 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK. MEANWHILE THE 13 PURCHASERS HAD ALSO FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE BEARING NO.138/11 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 46 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED ON RECORD THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF BOTH THE SUITS BEFORE US. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE C ASE WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) THAT BOTH THE PIECES OF LAND I.E. ONE SOLD IN 1998 AND THE ONE SOLD IN 2006 WERE DIFFERENT AND IT WAS NOT THE ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 8 SALE OF SAME LAND AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 30.12.1998 WHICH IS PLAC ED AT PAGES 8 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGES 20 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS WITH REGARD TO SALE OF PIECE OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.66/1A ADMEASURING 1.97H. SIMILARLY THE ALLEGED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 12.06.2006 ALSO T ALKS OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.66/1A ADMEASURING 1.97H . I N THE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES IN BOTH THE AGREEMENTS BOTH THE PLOTS OF LAND ARE SIMILARLY BOUNDED. THE SELLER IN BOTH THE AGREEMENTS IS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. HOWEVER THE PURCHASERS IN B OTH THE AGREEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID NARRATIONS IN THE TWO SALE DEEDS WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE TWO SALE DEEDS TALKS OF TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF LAND. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT HE WAS THE PERSON OF SMALL MEANS AND ONLY OWNED ONE PIECE OF LAND. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE TWO SALE DEEDS TALK OF SAME PIECE OF LAND AND THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE CL AIMS THAT IT HAD SOLD THE PIECE OF LAND IN DETERMINATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE CL AIMS THAT IT HAD SOLD THE PIECE OF LAND IN 1998 ADMITTEDLY THROUGH AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON STAMP DUTY PAPERS WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED TILL 2010 CAN THE SECOND AGREEMENT FOR THE SAME PIECE OF LAND EXECUTED BY THE SAME PERSON AFTER A GAP OF TIME IN 2006 BE HELD AS AN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD BEFORE US AND BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE SECOND DOCUMENT DATED 12.06.2006 IS A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY CERTAIN PERSONS WHO WERE KNOWN TO HIM. ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THIS REGARD ARE MENTIONED AS PART OF THE PLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE IN A HURRIED MANNER WITHOUT MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION OF THE IS SUE. IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE COPY OF FIR AND DIFFERENT SUITS FILED AGAINST THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION DATED 12.06.2006 AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTERING AUTHORITIES THAT BOTH THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED WERE VALID DOCU MENT AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER NEEDS ITA NO . 1897 /PN/20 1 3 MADHUKAR SAKHARAM LATAKE 9 TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL CARRY OUT INVESTIGATION AND ALSO WOULD CONSIDER THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS OF FILING OF THE SUIT BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT AND RE - ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE RE - ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED: 30 TH APRIL 2015 PUNE DATED: 30 APRIL 2015 GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT( A ) - I T/TP PUNE ; 4) THE CIT IT/TP PUNE ; 5) THE DR A BENCH I.T.A.T. PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. PUNE