Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10
Vs PARMINDER KAUR w/o Sh. ITO-III(3), Jalandar . SATNAM SINGH 868, Krishna Nagar, Near Aarti Chownk, Ludhiana. [PAN: ACCPK1155A] (Respendent) (Appellant)
Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal Adv Respondent by Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR and J S KHALO CIT DR Date of hearing 12.7.2021 Date of 16.08.2021 pronouncement
Order LALIET KUMAR JM Present appeal was filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the said the CIT(A) on 7/7/2017 on the following grounds:
Brief facts
In this case the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010, however the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer has sent the questionnaire along with the statutory notice to the assessee fixing the date of hearing as 26.12.2012. As per the assessment order none appeared on the date of hearing that is on 26.12.2012. Another
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 2
notice was issued on 17 January 2013, however the said notice was returned unserved, thereafter the assessing officer has affected the service through affixation. 2. In response to the notice, the assessee appeared before the assessing officer and submitted that the assessee is residing at house number 868 Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. It was also submitted by her that she after marriage had started living along with husband had the above said address and therefore the notice issued by the assessing officer was not served upon the assessee. The assessee has sought the copy of the reasons to reopen and the copy of the reasons to reopen were provided to the assessee on 23 February 2013. In the assessment order the assessing officer has mentioned that”. On 12.03.2013, the assessee moved an application stating as under: “we are to submit that we are in receipt of copy of reasons u/s 147/148 and questionnaire dated 07.01.2013 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as issued by your goodself in connection with the subject as above and in reply there to it is submitted as under:- “As regard the reply of questionnaire will be produced on the next date of hearing. As regard, mentioning of agreement of sale consideration of Rs.38157500/-, it is submitted that no such sale agreement was written. If there is any evidence On this issue please with your goodself the copy of the same may please be provided to the assessee to see the correctness, authenticity and varsity of the same.”
The assessing officer was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee assessment proceedings made the addition in the
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 3
hands of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 3 ,17,47,500/-vide order dated 28.03.2018 with the following conclusion. “ From the above, it is clear that the assessee has entered into agreement for purchase of property measuring 606 sq. yards at Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana as admitted before the DDIT. But the assessee has not disclosed the true facts of the transactions made along with her husband. Perusal of agreement which has been entered into by the assessee with Sh. Sarup Singh, copy of which is in the possession of the department, reveals that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- as advance to Sh. Sarup Singh on 09.05.2008 and agreed to pay Rs.2,67,47,450/- on 15.09.2008. However, the said property was got registered on 08.10s.2008 through two different registration deeds one for Rs.34,90,000/- in the name of the assessee & her husband and the other was made at Rs.29,20,000/-, in the name of the assessee, totaling at Rs.64,10 lac. The assessee has not shown the full and true value of the property in the registration deeds. Further the assessee’s claim that there are four partner of the impugned property is not correct and without any evidence. Perusal of agreement reveals that the property has been purchased by the assessee only. The assessee failed to explain the source of investment made by her in property at Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana in spite of sufficient time allowed to her. Even the assessee failed to explain the source of Rs.64.10 lacs which is claimed by the assessee as purchase value. Therefore, the assessee has made investment of Rs.3,17,47,500/- from undisclosed sources during the financial year 200809 relevant to assessment year 2009-10 which are not disclosed in his return of income and the same is treated as income from undisclosed sources and brought to tax. ,No separate addition has been made on account of cash deposits in the saving bank of the assessee during the year in view of addition made on account of purchase of property.”
It is the case of the assessee that the assessee has not received the copy of the assessment order. Further the assessee was not served upon the demand notice issued by the assessing officer dated 28 March 2013. The assessee has inspected the record of
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 4
the assessing officer and the learned that the demand notice dated 28 March 2013 was sent at wrong address namely at 863 Krishna Nagar Ludhiana, whereas the assessee was living at house number 868 Krishna Nagar Ludhiana. 5. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) after a considerable delay of 1313 days, in the grounds of appeal before the learned CIT appeal it was mentioned by the assessee as under A. The above appeal is being filed by the Applicant on 05.12.2016 before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the Impuged order. B. The appellant never received the impugned order due to the following reasons:- (a) The Applicant resides at Ludhiana and no one dwells at the following reasons:- (b) the present case proceedings were handled by the Applicants husband. However, he fell seriously ill due to liver and kidney problems. He remained in the hospital for a long time and ultimately demised in June 2016. In the meanwhile, owing to the disturbed atmosphere in the family, no one persued the case properly and the Appellant had no knowledge of the case. The death certificate of husband of the Appellant is attached herewith as Annexure-B. (c) It was only after the death of the husband and realizing that a series of notices from TRO, Jalandhar have been issued, the Appellant did not have any record with her and she applied for the details of the present proceedings under RTI Act, 2005. The copy of
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 5
the RTI Application along with response is annexed as Annexure-C. (d) The response under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 have been received on 09.11.2016 and thus, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.
The CIT appeal was not convinced with the reasoning given by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal as well as on merit, and therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order impugned before us 7.7. 2017.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT appeal the assessee is in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 8. The learned A.R. for the assessee has submitted that the assessment order was sent at the wrong address by the Assessing Officer which is clear from the order and the speed post received back unserved. At the envelope the address was mentioned as 507, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalander. In fact, the said address was the address of the father of the assessee where she was living prior to her marriage. Further, the learned A.R.has drawn our attention to another address, namely, at 863, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. It was the contention of the learned A.R. that even the said address was not correct as the assessee was living at 868, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. The assessing Officer even in the assessment order has recorded the address of the assessee at 868, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana.
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 6
The learned A.R. has further submitted that the assessee had been filing the return of his income for the last many years from the address of 868, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. However, despite the correct address was in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, neither the assessment order nor the demand notice was served upon the assessee at the correct address. 10. The learned A.R. has submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has wrongly dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay. He had filed written submissions in support of condonation of delay as also on merit and also filled the affidavit in support of condonation application for delay.
That the Bench on 05.07.2021 had directed the D.R. to produce the case record of the file and to verify whether the assessment order and the demand notice were served upon the assessee at the correct address or not? Thereafter the case was adjourned to 06.07.2021.
That on 06.07.2021, Shri Rahul Dhawan, CIT (D.R.) appeared before the Bench along with the record. He had submitted that he had verified from the record that the notices and the assessment order and the demand notice were sent at the wrong address. He had submitted that the in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) be condoned in accordance with law. However, it was submitted that in case the Bench wishes to hear the matter on merit, any short adjournment be granted.
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 7
We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and 13. perused the material on record. The perusal of the material available on record and the paper book clearly shows that the assessing Officer had sent the demand notice at incorrect address which is clear from the demand notice and the envelope placed on record at page 17 and 18 of the paper book. Further, we also noticed that the demand notice was served by affixation on 30th March, 2013, at 507, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalander. In fact, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has recorded that the assessee is living at 868, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana, alongwith her husband. However, despite the above said the assessment order along with the demand notice were sent at the wrong address. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid facts have duly been verified by the learned CIT (DR) and the other facts reproduced herein-above clearly show that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) within the time granted by the statute. In our considered opinion, there was reasonable cause for 14. not filing the appeal in time before the CIT (Appeals) and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned by the CIT (Appeals). As the assessee was able to demonstrate the just and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time and considering the ‘no objection’ of the learned CIT (DR), the delay in filing the appeal for a period of 1313 days is condoned.
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 8
As we have condoned the delay, we have intimated the 15. fact of condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021.
The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated 09.05.2008 (at page 39-46 of the paper book). It was submitted that the said agreement was not signed by the assessee nor it came from the possession of the assessee. The learned A.R. had submitted that this agreement cannot 17. be relied upon by the assessing Officer for making the addition for Rs.3,17,47,500/-. The learned A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court ‘CIT vs. Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36’ and ‘Smt. Darshan Kaur vs. The Primary Cooperative Agriculture Bank Ltd., (2010) (2) PLR 287’. 18. The learned A,.R. had further submitted that on the basis of the same agreement6 to sell, the additions were made in the hands of the husband of the assessee, however, the additions made in the hands of the husband on the basis of this agreement were deleted by the Assessing Officer. He drawn our attention to the order passed in the case of Shri Satnam Singh, the husband of the assessee, at page 2, wherein the A.O. has reproduced as under:-
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 9
4 You have purchased property measuring 606.66 Sq. Yards in Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana vide two registration deeds on 23.10.2008. One plot measuring 288.66 Sq. Yards was registered in the name of your wife Smt. Parminder Kaur and other plot measuring 312 Sq. Yards in your name and in the name of your wife Smt. Parminder Kaur at a total purchase price of Rs.64,10,000/, but as per agreement dated 9.5.2008 the sale consideration of this property is Rs.3,17,47,450/- as against the registry value. You are requested to disclose the source of investment made at Rs.3,17,47,450/- and Rs.64,10,000/-.” In response to this question the assessee, vide his reply dated 24.08.2011 stated as under: “As per alleged fake agreement of sale price has been mentioned as Rs.45,000/- p. sq. Yard. If the calculation is made for the whole property measuring 606.5 sq. Yards, the value comes to Rs.2,72,92,500/-, whereas in the agreement the total valaue of sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- per Sq. Yard for 606.5 Sq. Yards has mentioned at Rs.3,17,47,500/-. It clearly shows that this agreement filed by any person and provided to the assessee by your goodself is clear vindication of forgery to put the assessee as well as department to unnecessary harassment.”
The assessing Officer of Shri Satnam Singh had thereafter has not made any addition in the hands of the assessee on account of the alleged agreement to sell. The above said fact is clear from the income assessed in the hands of Shri Satnam Singh, which was (page 6) as under:
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 10
“The income of the assessee is computed as under :Income as per return 4,51,000/- Addition as discussed above 19,02,450/- Addition as discussed above 27,50,000/- Total income of Assessee 51,03,450/- Assessed. Issue requisite documents Charge Intt. u/s 234B and 234C Penalty Notice u/s 271(1)(c ) is being issued separately.”
Shri Satnam Singh had preferred the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) at page 4 to page 6 has held as under:- “ The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed the assessee had purchased a plot measuring 600.66 sq. yard for Rs. 64,10,000/- having worth of Rs. 3,17,47,500/-. The said plot had been purchased as under:-
S.No. Registration Measurement Name of the Purchase Date purchaser Amt. 1. 23.10.2008 288.66 Sq.Yd. Smt. Rs. Parminder 29,20,000/- kaur W/o. Dr. Satnam Singh R/o. 868, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana 2. -do- 312 Sq.yd. -do- Rs. (1/2 156 Sq.yd. ) Satnam 34,90,000/-
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 11
(1/2 156 Sq.yd. ) Singh R/o. As above Total amount of purchased property Rs. 64,10,000/-
The assessee submitted before the DDIT(Inv.)-II. Ludhiana on oath that the source of payment of Rs. 64 lacs was loan from family friends and he could not remember names of such family friends and also could not tell as to how much amount was paid by each of such friends. During the course of appellate proceedings the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee that the impugned property had been purchased for Rs. 64,10,000/- as per agreement dated 9/5/2008 whereas the actual sale consideration was Rs. 3,17,47,500/-. The assessee submitted the following explanation before the Assessing Officer- "As per alleged fake agreement of sale price has been mentioned as Rs. 45,000/- per Sq. Yard. If the calculation is made for the whole property measuring 606.5 Sq. Yards, the value comes to Rs. 2,72,92,500/-, where as in the agreement the total value of sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/- per Sq. Yards for 606.5 Sq. Yards has mentioned at Rs. 3,17,47,500/-. It clearly shows that the agreement filed by any person and provided to the assessee by your goodself is clear vindication of forgery to put the assessee as well as department to unnecessary harassment."
The assessee explained the source of investment before the Assessing Officer by producing three persons from whom said loans have been raised. The Assessing Officer recorded statement of Sh.Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh who stated before the Assessing Officer that he had paid Rs. 25 lacs to the assessee in lieu of his own share in the property. The deponent had however submitted in the affidavit said amount of Rs. 25 lacs had been given as loan to Dr. Satnam Singh. This clearly showed that the statement of Sh. Mohinder Singh was not reliable at all. The Assessing Officer also brought on record the fact of Sh. Mohinder Singh being a petty farmer having 3.25 Acres of land with seven family members to feed and therefore could not be in possession of an amount of Rs. 25 lacs in cash to either invest or to lend. In fact Sh. Mohinder Singh had stated before the Assessing Officer that the said amount of Rs. 25 lacs was loan taken by him from another family friend. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to work out the assessee's half share in the property and the investment thereof to the tune of Rs. 19,02,450/- and made the
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 12
addition.
The Assissing Officer further confronted the facts of deposits of cash in the bank account No. 4005000100372260 and 4005000100398365 by Dr. Satnam Singh to the tune of Rs. 27,50,000/-. The assessee on being contronted with the same submitted before the assessing officer that he owned agricultural land at village chowkiman where teak plants and other plants had been developed and the amount deposited in the bank account was proceeds of such sales. The Assessing Officer however found that the assessee did not have a single acre of land and most of the land was in the name of his wife. The assessee on being given an opportunity to produce evidence of either ownership or of cultivation of land in support of his claim could not produce the same. The Assessing Officer also brought on record that the assessee, as per his return of income had not shown any agricultural income. The Assessing Officer therefore concluded that the amount deposited in the bank account to the tune of Rs. 27,50,000/-. The appellant has not filed any more evidence to substantiate his claim regarding having done cultivation of teak plants. In the circumstances the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed.”
On the basis of the above, it was submitted that no addition in respect to the fake agreement were made in the hands of the assessee. Even the order of the A.O. in the case of SatnamSingh was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and thereafter by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2014.
On the basis of the above said submissions, it was submitted that the additions made by the assessing Officer/CIT (Appeals) were required to be deleted.
The learned D.R. for the Revenue had submitted that the investigating unit of the respondent received the information that the assessee along with her husband had made unaccounted investments of Rs.3,17,47,500/- on the basis of the agreement
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 13
dated 09.05.2008. The investigation wing of the respondent have recorded the statement of the assessee’s husband, wherein he had submitted that he had signed the agreement on 15.08.2008, however, the same was destroyed and thereafter the registry of the plot in question was made on 23.10.2008 for Rs.64,00,000/-. It was submitted that the said Rs.64,00,000/- was paid in cash. He has drawn our attention to question No. 5 and 6 and their reply reproduced by the assessing Officer in the assessment order. The learned D.R. relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the assessment order passed in the case of late Shri Satnam Singh, husband of the assessee, it is abundantly clear that the agreement dated 09.05.2008 was considered to be fake agreement by the Assessing Officer. The above said fact was also mentioned and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). However, the Assessing Officer had made the additions of Rs.19,02,450/- and Rs.27,50,000/- in the hands of Shri Satnam Singh. The Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs.19,02,450/- by giving the following reasons (page 4 ) - “In view of the above, it has become crystal clear that the evidence produced by assessee in the garb of an agriculturist Sh. Mohinder Singh is not genuine and unable to prove creditworthiness hence this evidence cannot be accepted. The fact is that the assessee himself has introduced his own income from other sources, to purchase a property in question, which was not declared before
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 14
the department for tax. The cash investment made by assessee has been calculated as under: Total area of plot 312 sq. yards ½ share of Satnam Singh 156 Sq. yards Total purchase price of property 312 Sq. Yards. Rs.34,90,000/- ½ share of the assessee Rs.17,45,000/- ½ share of stamp duty paid Rs. 1,40,000/- Other expenses 1% commission paid etc. Rs. 17,450/- Total income escaped Rs.19,02,450/- The assessee had made investment of Rs.19,02,450/-, which has escaped assessment and by applying provisions of Section 69 of I.T.Act, 1961, the same is added back to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The assessee has concealed his income for the year from tax and not offered to tax, I have therefore reasons to believe that the assessee has concealed income of Rs.19,02,450/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of I.T.Act are being initiated separately.”
In our view, once the document has been found to be a fake document and the same was not relied upon by the assessing Officer of Shri Satnam Singh (husband of the assessee, this agreement to sell cannot be relied upon by the Assessing Officer of the assessee before us as well as by the CIT (Appeals) for making the additions on account of undisclosed investment in the property. In our considered opinion, once the Assessing Officer has accepted the sale consideration of the sale deed dated 08.10.2008 at Rs.34,56,800/- in the case of the husband, then the
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 15
assessing officer of the appellant cannot take a contrary and contradictory position and allege that instead of Rs.34,56,800/-, the sale consideration was Rs.3,17,47,500/-. The Revenue cannot be permitted to take contradictory stand, more particularly in the light of the fact that the assessment in the hands of Shri Satnam Singh on the basis of the alleged document have attained finality and no addition was made on the basis of this document.
We are also of the opinion that the said agreement was not recovered from the possession of the assessee or from her husband. The said agreement also do not bear the signature of the assessee and also of her husband. Further, the said agreement was never been proved or confronted in original to the assessee during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the Revenue cannot rely upon the agreement dated 09.05.2008. In our considered opinion, any paper/evidence is required to be proved either by way of primary evidence or by a secondary evidence. In the present case, the document was merely a photo copy, which was not recovered from the possession of the assessee and the said photo copy was not even signed by the assessee. Therefore, the same is not admissible in law.
Further, the original of the photo copy was not confronted to the assessee. We are also of the opinion that even the statement of the other signatory on the agreement, namely, Man Preet Singh (witness), Shri Swarup Singh (seller) and Jaswinder Singh (witness) were not recorded by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of proving the undisclosed investment by the assessee or
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 16
the transaction between the parties. In the light of the above, no addition can be made on the basis of the agreement dated 09.05.2008.
During the course of arguments, we have enquired from the learned A.R. to disclose the source of investment of the registered value of the property. However, the assessee had failed to disclose the source of investment. However, a brief synopsis in support of the contention that no addition can be made even in respect of half share of the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed dated 08.10.2008, it was mentioned as under. 1. “ That late Sh. Satnam Singh purchased a plot 606.66 sq. yards and even, both in the order of the husband and in the order of the assessee, there is a mention of the statement of sh. Satnam Singh since he was the fund provider for the purchase of the plot and the assessee has nothing to do with it. He in his answer to the Assessing Officer, explained the source of Rs. 64.10 lacs as under: “As per the information received the assessee Sh. Satnam Singh has deposed before the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, Ludhiana, during the course of recording his statement on 10.05.2010 (recorded on oath) the assessee, Sh. Satnam Singh in a reply to question No. 6 has replied as under: “Q. No. 6 Please state the source of payment at Rs. 64 Lacs (Approx.) Ans. The amount of Rs. 64 Lacs was made in cash and it was taken from family friends. Q. No. 7 Please disclose the names of these family friends and how much money from each friend was taken I don’t remember the names of those family friends and Ans. also don’t know the amount of money taken from each friend.” From the above statement before the Dy. Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, Ludhiana, the following points have been noticed: (i) The payment has been made in cash.
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 17
The assessee did not know the names of those “family friends” who (ii) have advanced him hug amount of money. (iii) Even the assessee failed to remember the amount of money borrowed from each “Family Friend”. From the above statement before DDIT (Inv.) it has become crystal clear and beyond doubt that there were no such family friends from whom he has borrowed such a huge amount of money in cash and also without interest. No loan or other kind of money was received from any other person, but he has introduced his own income and invested in the purchase of property. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a questionnaire dated 25.07.2011 was issued and served on the assessee vide Q. No. 4 of this questionnaire the assessee was asked to give evidence regarding source of cash invested in the purchase of property:- Q. No. 4 You have purchased property measuring 606.66 sq. yards in Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana vide two registration deed on 23.10.2008 One plot measuring 288.66 Sq. Yards was registered in the name of your wife Smt. Parminder Kaur and other plot measuring 312 sq. yards in your own name and in the name of your wife Smt. Parminder Kaur at a total purchase price of Rs. 64,10,000/- but as per agreement dated 09.05.2008 the sale consideration of this property is Rs. 3,17,47,500/- as against the registry value. You are requested to disclose the source of investment made at Rs. 3,17,47,500/- and Rs. 64,10,000/-” 2. Though in the order of the assessee, it has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer, the source of Rs. 64.10 lacs have not been explained by the assessee, it is submitted that the total registered value of property was Rs. 64.10 lacs and, therefore, when the assessee’s husband late Sh. Satnam Singh, has already owned-up the total investment in the plot and, he had been questioned before the DDIT, for full investment of the plot and, therefore, any addition of the investment of the plot in the hands of the assessee who is a widow lady cannot be made. 3. The reliance is being placed in the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of H. Shahul Hameed vs. ACIT reported 0258 ITR 266 (copy enclosed) in which, the wife could not explain the source of the property and the addition as made in the hands of the husband and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court because it was the husband who has acquired the property in the names of the wife and, in this case also, everything had been asked about the sources from Sh. Satnam Singh as is evident from the order of the assessee and the assessmentorder of late Sh. Satnam Singh. Therefore, when no cognizancehave been taken of the so called agreement and as such, no addition of any investment can be made in the hands of the wife on the basis of statement recorded of the husband. There was no requirement of the Assessing Officer for any statement regarding the source by the widow lady and no addition could be
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 18
made on the basis of the statement of the husband in the hands of his wife. It is therefore prayed that no addition of the investment is required to be made in the hands of the assessee as per the facts mentioned above and, also as per the judgment of the Madras High Courtin the case of H. Shahul Hameed vs. ACIT reported 0258 ITR 266. The reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sunita Gadde Vs. ITO in ITA No. 6855/del/2018 for the AY 2009-2010. “
The learned D.R. had supported the case of A.O. and had submitted that even the assessee has failed to disclose the source of cash payment made by her at the time of registration of the property on 08.10.2008.
We have heard the rival contentions of the parties. The assessee had purchased 288.66 Sq. Yards on 23.10.2008for a consideration of Rs.29,20,000/-, as per the registered sale deed. The other registered sale deed was made in the name of the assessee and her husband for an of 312 Sq. Yards for a total consideration of Rs.34,90,000/-.The Assessing Officer of Shri Satnam Singh had made the addition of 50% of the share of Satnam Singh for an amount of Rs.19,02,450/- (supra), in respect to 312 Sq. Yards sale deed only. No other addition on account of investment made in the property admeasuring 288.66 Sq. Yards were made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of Shri Satnam Singh.
Though the assessee sought to explain the source of Rs.64 lacs disclosed by Shri Satnam Singh in his assessment order,
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 19
however, the same do not come for rescue for the assessee, as it is for the assessee to disclose the source of investment made by her in the property. Nothing has been disclosed and merely because the same was disclosed by the husband of the assessee, in our view, is no explanation in the eye of law as it is required to be independently tested and examined by the revenue authorities. Further, we are also of the opinion that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not submitted that the investment made by her to the tune of Rs.19,02,450/-+ Rs.29,20,000/- =Rs.48,22,450/- was made after borrowing it from the husband. In fact, it was the case of the husband that the consideration was paid in cash to the seller. The assessing Officer of the husband had made the addition of Rs.19,02,450/- and Rs.27,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee (on account of undisclosed cash deposit in the bank account).
As the assessee failed to disclose the source of investment of Rs.48,22,450/ either before the Assessing Officer or before CIT or before us, therefore, we have no other option but to confirm the addition of Rs.48,22,450/-.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial member
I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 20
Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order
Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal