RUKSHANA BEGUM,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3814/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 July 2023AY 2008-097 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the entire investment could not be treated as unexplained in the assessee's hands as she had only a 50% share. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for her share of the investment, including agreements to sell plots by her husband and a gift from him.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased a property jointly with her mother-in-law for Rs. 15 lakhs, with stamp duty of Rs. 2,63,000/-. The authorities treated the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 30,29,000/- as unexplained investment in the assessee's hands. The assessee claimed her share was funded by a gift from her husband and her own savings.

What were the issues?

Whether the stamp duty valuation can be treated as sale consideration for unexplained investment, and whether the assessee's explanation for the source of funds for her share of the property was sufficient.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 56(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Hasneeta Matta, CA, Ms. Tanya, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10/05/2023Pronounced: 07/07/2023

PER C. M. GARG, J. M.:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2, Noida dated 30.03.2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances in dismissing the appeal arbitrary by overlooking incurable fundamental errors of law, leading to miscarriage of justice.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in law, on facts and in surrounding circumstances in failing to appreciate that since the Ld. A.O. was not having any tangible and specific material such as, the sale deed in question except vague AIR information at the time of forming opinion, the impugned belief so entertained by him is not only speculative in nature but also inaccur

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →