MEENA P. SHAH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(3)(4), MUMBAI

The assessee is an individual and she filed her return of income declaring a total income of Rs.36,664/-. She held an immovable property along with her husband and the same was sold during the year under consideration. While computing the capital gain, the AO did not allow 50% of the brokerage and stamp duty paid on the property on the reasoning that the assessee did not produce any supporting documents. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same.

The Ld A.R submitted that the identical claim made in the case of assessee’s husband has been allowed by the AO. Accordingly he prayed for the relief. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.

Having heard rival contentions, I am of the view that this issue requires examination afresh at the end of the assessing officer, since similar claim made by the husband of the assessee has been claimed to have been allowed. Since the claim pertains to same payments, it may not be proper to take a different view in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine this issue afresh by duly considering the view taken in the hands of the assessee’s husband. The assessee is also directed to furnish the details that may be called for by the AO.

The next issue relates to the addition of bank deposits. The Ld A.R submitted that the bank account was held in the joint name of assessee and her husband. He submitted that the bank account is being operated by assessee’s husband only and hence the explanation for the sources of deposits should have been called from her husband only. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has failed to offer proper explanations with regard to the deposits made into the bank account.

Having heard rival contentions, I am of the view that this issue also requires fresh examination at the end of the AO, since the assessee claims that the deposits belong to her husband only. Accordingly I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine this issue afresh by calling for explanations from the assessee’s husband and also by calling for such other information from the 3 Meena P. Shah assessee as may be required in this regard and decide the issue in accordance with the law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 2.5.2017.