TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion emerges is that the beneficial ownership of the flat was always with the builder and the assessee was merely a front for executing the arrangement. The CIT(A) also recorded a finding that income arising from sale of said flat has already been included in the total income of the builder, which fact has not been rebutted by the AO, therefore, the same cannot once again be added in the hands of the assessee. The detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) are as per material on record, therefore, do not require any interference on our part. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 1344/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2016 - Shri R. C. Sharma, AM And Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM Revenue by : Shri Randhir Gupta Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant and her husbands are signatories to the purchase and sale agreements. This position was strongly opposed by the appellants during the course of the assessment proceedings itself stating that even though they were the signatories, they were merely name lenders to the arrangement and that the agreements were executed only under the direction of the builder. The appellant had also requested the AO to cross verify these facts from the builders. The AO however did not carry out any such cross verification during assessment proceeding and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was the legal owner of the said flat and therefore the income arising on sale of the said flat was assessable in her hands only. 7.2. In his affidavit D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant's side in respect of the Raj Arcade Flat. 7.4 Even at the time of sale of the said flat the appellant has not received any amount from M/s, Karma Ispat Ltd. The entire consideration of ₹ 50 Lakhs is received by the builder, This fact is evident from the appellant's and her husband's bank statements filed before me, This fact is also corroborated with the submissions of the builder in his affidavit and again before the AO during remand proceedings as well as submission of M/s, Karma Ispat ltd in the affidavit of their Director, Moreover the builder has also confirmed in his submissions during the Remand Proceedings that they have shown the sale of the said flat no 132 H in Raj Arcade to MI5, Karma Ispat Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right, Thus their Lordships have taken the view that having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the IT Act namely, to tax the income in the hands of real owner, their Lordships have taken the view that the owner is the person who is entitled to receive income, This decision of the Apex Court was relied upon by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal.). In the said case, the assessee had bought a house property in the name of her wife, However the entire investment for buying the property was made by the assessee himself, The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court relying on the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that the appellant / her husband have received any consideration or any other benefit under this arrangement. In view of the same, the addition made u/s 69A cannot even otherwise stand. 7.8. In view of the above discussion and analysis of the facts and circumstance of the case as well as keeping in view of the fact that the appellant's contention could not get rebutted during the remand proceeding and verification process by the A.O., I have no reason to reject the appellant's submissions and grounds. 3. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below as well as remand report sent by the AO. From the record we found that the said flat No.132/H in Raj Arcade was sold to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
