RUBY SHOME,BIRATI vs. ITO, WARD 49(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2837/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 August 2026AY 2017-20186 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not contributed any amount towards the purchase consideration and the entire amount was paid by her husband, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not be sustained in the hands of the assessee. The evidence showed the husband was the sole contributor.

What were the facts?

The assessee and her husband purchased an immovable property where the stamp duty value was significantly higher than the sale consideration. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is sustainable in the hands of a co-owner who has not contributed to the purchase consideration. Whether the entire sale consideration paid by the husband should be considered for determining the share of the co-owners.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 147,Section 148,Section 64(1)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Mandal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2837/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Ruby Shome Vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata E 14 Nabardarsha Co. Op. Housing Birati, West Bengal-700051 [PAN: CMLPS0186G] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Ujjawal Mandal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 11.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 26.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

There is a delay of 26 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 26 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.2837/Kol/2025 Ruby Shome; A.Y: 2017-18 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee along with her husband purchased an immovable property by showing sale consideration at Rs.16,31,438/- whereas the market value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs.30,51,000/-. The case of the Assessee was reopened based on the information and a notice u/s 148 of the Act came to be issued. An Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 of the Act on 30.05.2023 by making an addition of Rs.7,09,781/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. As against the Assessment Order dated 13.05.2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 26.08.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal.

4.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.7,09,781/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by treating the difference between the stamp duty value and purchase consideration as deemed income, ignoring the fact that the Appellant was only a nominal co- owner having neither contributed to the purchase consideration nor derived any benefit therefrom. Further contended that, the entire investment was made by the Appellant’s husband from his own known sources, hence no addition lies in the hands of the Assessee herein. The Learned Counsel has also taken us to section 45 of Transfer of Page | 2

ITA No.2837/Kol/2025 Ruby Shome; A.Y: 2017-18 Property Act, 1882 which deals with joint transaction of consideration and contended that the entire sale consideration was paid by the husband who has been shown as first purchaser in the sale deed, therefore, the husband of the Assessee is to be treated as owner for the purpose of taxation and as the entire sale consideration having shown from the Assessee’s husband, any income or deemed therefrom if at all, ought to have been clubbed in the hands of the Assessee’s husband and u/s 64(1)(iv) of the Act. Thus, submitted that the addition made in the hands of the Assessee is deserves to be deleted.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that as per sale deed, Assessee is the owner of the immovable property jointly purchased by the husband of the Assessee in the Assessee herein. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly considered that the Assessee herein escaped the income (which is 50%) of Rs.7,09,781/-. The Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

6.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that Assessee along with her husband purchased immovable property for the sale consideration of Rs.16,31,438/- whereas the market value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs.30,51,000/-. As per the Assessee, the entire sale consideration has been given by the husband of the Assessee. Further contended that Assessee who has been shown as Page | 3

ITA No.2837/Kol/2025 Ruby Shome; A.Y: 2017-18 second purchaser/co-owner, neither contributed to the sale consideration nor derive any benefit therefrom and the entire investment was made by the Assessee’s husband from his own known sources therefore, claimed that the provisions of u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act cannot be invoked against the Assessee herein. To substantiate the said claim, the Assessee produced the statement of account of the husband of the Assessee before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Assessee has also provided the chart of the payment of total sale consideration made by the husband of the Assessee to the developer. For the sake of ready reference, the chart produced by the Ld. AR is reproduced as under:-

Summary of Total Amount Paid to Samsaresh Paul (S. Paul Associates) Particulars Amount Amount paid towards Property (As per Deed) 16,31,438/- Payment towards extra work 2,68,562/- Total Payment Done 19,00,000/-

Cheque and Date wise details of Payment of Rs.19,00,000/- Cheque No. Bank Dated Amount (Rs.) 475022 SBI 13.11.2014 400,000 475032 SBI 02.12.2014 500,000 475040 SBI 15.12.2014 500,000 475048 SBI 14.01.2015 150,000 475049 SBI 16.012015 150,000 299746 SBI 22.01.2015 49,000 299747 SBI 28.01.2015 49,000 299748 SBI 28.01.2015 49,000 299749 SBI 31.01.2015 49,000 299750 SBI 31.01.2015 4,000 Total 1,900,000

ITA No.2837/Kol/2025 Ruby Shome; A.Y: 2017-18 7. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee contended that Assessee has not contributed to the sale consideration and the entire sale consideration has been paid by the husband. The Revenue has not made any further enquiry by issuing notice to the husband of the Assessee. Though the first name in the sale deed, Assessee’s husband’s name has been mentioned as purchaser and the Assessee has also contended that her husband has paid the entire sale consideration, no assessment proceedings has been initiated against the husband of the Assessee.

8.

As per Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ‘in the absence of evidence as to the interest in the fund to which they were respectively entitled, or as to the share which they respectively advanced, such persons shall be presumed to be equally interested in the property.’ In the present case, there is specific evidence adduced by the Assessee that entire sale consideration has been paid by the husband, therefore, the husband can only be presumed to be having an interest over the property. Further, for the purpose of computing the capital gain, the respective sale consideration paid by the respective purchasers of the property will be taken into account. Therefore even for the purpose of making addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the Revenue shall consider the respective shares which the purchasers advanced shall be taken into account. Precisely in the Page | 5

ITA No.2837/Kol/2025 Ruby Shome; A.Y: 2017-18 present case, if at all addition has to be made i.e., in the husband as the husband who has paid the entire sale consideration. Invocation of the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act against the Assessee who has not contributed any amount for the purchase of the immovable property cannot be sustained. Accordingly, addition made by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted.

9.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed.

Order pronounced on 20.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// (MANISH BHOI) DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →