Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (6) TMI 455 - Income Tax
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - AO not accepted the reply submitted by the assessee for the reason that the above sale is a Pucca Sale as the assessee had paid Stamp duty on the market value of the propert possession and the Title of the property was transferred in the assessee's name - HELD THAT:- As gone through the registered sale deed, which is part of appellate order, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that Shri S.V. Rajagopal, represented by his Power Agent Shri V. Sekar as Vendor executed the sale deed, which was duly registered in SRO, Neelankari, in favour of Smt. Geetha Sekar, the assessee towards transfer of scheduled property for a sale consideration and the vendor also admitted and acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration. In the appellate order, CIT(A) has observed that if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not Mr. V. Sekar, as is claimed, but Mr. S.V. Rajagopal is the actual owner of the property and Mr. V. Sekar is only the power agent acting on behalf of Mr. S.V. Rajagopal.
CIT(A) was of the opinion that the transaction is not a “family transaction” as is being claimed. CIT(A) has further observed that even if it is presumed for a moment that the vendor is Mr. V. Sekar, husband of the assessee, the claim that the sale consideration was not received by the vendor is unproved and is difficult to believe in the light of the fact that the Sale Deed expressly states the facts to the contrary. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Rental receipts - As during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to explain and reconcile the gross receipts with bank account - Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has explained that the gross receipts of ₹.2,20,000/- was accumulated rental income received and deposited in the bank account on 08.01.2012 of ₹.1,72,000/- and on 15.03.2012 of ₹.50,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the reply and only allowed two month rent i.e. (₹.12000 x 2) and the balance of ₹.1,98,000/- was disallowed and treated as income by stating that a businessman will not keep the rent received ideal. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. We also find no error in the orders of authorities below on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.