Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 482 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAMUnexplained Investment - assessee filed the return of income along with computation of income stating that the assessee sold gold jewellery of 40 Tulas and used her own savings to purchase the above said property - assessee's representative appeared before the CIT(A) and argued that the transaction was between husband and wife and was no real money exchange in the registration - HELD THAT:- We find from the written submissions made by the Ld. AR that the vacant site was purchased on 19/12/2005. The transactions has been registered as a document styled as "General Power of Attorney clubbed with possession". Admitted facts are that the husband of the assessee in order to retain the property got the property registered in the assessee's name and has repaid the loans borrowed by him by sale of gold jewellery and personal savings of the assessee. We also find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that the transactions are between the husband and wife and there was no actual consideration passed on between the husband and wife. The consideration mentioned in the sale deed was only for the purpose of stamp duty determination and hence it cannot be treated as a consideration received by the husband of the assessee nor paid by the assessee. Considering the peculiarity in the nature of transaction in the instant case, we find merit in the Ld. AR's argument that no real consideration has been transferred by the assessee for the purchase of land. In view of the disclosure made by the assessee while filing the return of income as required U/s. 148 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that section 69 of the Act cannot be invoked as it applies only to the investments which are not recorded in the books of accounts. Actual transfer of money was not done by the assessee to her husband and since the registration was done only to save the property without real consideration, we are of the considered view that the order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed and we allow the appeal of the assessee.
|