SH. HARI KUMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Meerut for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

The only issue is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.45,60,000/- as short term capital gain whereas it was contended by the assessee that the property is purchased and sold by him as benami property of his sister and brother Shri Dharam Singh who paid purchase consideration for this sum.

Brief facts of the case are that according to the AIR information it came to the knowledge of the Income Tax Department that a property for Rs. 48,41,262/- is sold on 24th June 2008 and therefore notice u/s 148 was issued. In response to that notice it was submitted that the original return filed on 8th June 2012 Page 2 of 3 may be treated as return filed u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that impugned land is purchased and sold on behalf of Shri Dharam Singh and he was only acting as a Benami of that gentleman, he stated that total purchase consideration was received from him and total sales consideration was given to him and therefore this capital gain is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. These facts were also recorded by issue of summons u/s 131 by the assessee. Based on this information u/s 133(6) was called from Shri Dharam Singh and Smt. Saroj, both of them denied this fact. In view of this short term capital gain of Rs.45,60,000/- is taxed in the hands of the assessee. Against this the assessee filed an appeal before ld CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the addition.

On appeal before us the ld AR of the appellant submitted same arguments and stated that he is the owner of the benami property of Shri Dharam Singh and Smt. Saroj and therefore capital gain is not chargeable in his hands. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the orders of lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and we have also perused the Paper Book filed by the assessee along with written submission and we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authorities. The assessee has failed to prove anything about whatever is said about the ownership of the property. Merely making a statement and not adducing any evidence supporting that argument cannot help the assessee. In response to 133(6) letters the alleged owners stated by the assessee have categorically denied the ownership of the property. Further the documents emphatically show assessee as the owner and also recipient of the consideration. Receipt of money for purchase of property by assessee and payments of money on sale of property by assessee to somebody else cannot be any basis for treating that person as the real owner of the property. In view of the above we confirm the finding of ld CIT (A) in adding Rs.45, 60,000/- in the hands of the assessee as short term capital gain on sale of property. In the result ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed.