TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in the hands of the assessee instead of his wife - HELD THAT:- Both the purchase and sale documents clearly show that the property was acquired by Smt Vanaja, wife of the assessee, on 17-09-2008 and the same was sold by her on 14-10-2009. The Ld. AR submitted that the property was acquired from the source of Smt Vanaja but not of the assessee. DR did not controvert the above facts. The Ld. DR also did not place any evidence regarding the beneficial ownership to make assessement in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the capital gains, if any, should be assessed in the hands of the owner of the property i.e Smt Vanaja but, not in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A) and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 for consideration ₹ 20,23,500/-, Hence the CIT(A) allowed the credit for ₹ 20,23,500/- as receipts from sale of the property of his wife Smt. Vanaja and directed the A.O to assess the balance amount of ₹ 12.90 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits. Accordingly, the CIT(A) allowed partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Ld AR, appearing for the assessee, argued that the assessee s wife Smt. Vanaja sold her property for a consideration of ₹ 32.00 lakhs and the same was deposited in the assessee s savings bank account. The entire deposits were related to sale of the property and for the sake of registration the consideration was declared at & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and no evidence was furnished by the assessee from the purchaser having admitted the purchase consideration at ₹ 32.00 lacs and the sources thereof. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the sale consideration was ₹ 32.00 lakhs is unfounded and cannot be accepted. With regard to the second argument of the assessee that the entire deposits are related to the sale of the house belonging to the assessee s wife Smt. Vanaja hence, the same should be assessed in the hands of Smt. Vanaja, is also not acceptable, since, the deposits are made in the assessee s bank account. Prima facie, the deposits in the bank account of the assessee required to be explained by the assessee with the tangible evidence. From the paper book file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urce for the deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to accepting the source of ₹ 20.23 lakhs. With regard to the balance amount of ₹ 12.90 lakhs, the assessee claimed that the same was also received by sale of the property, by his wife vide sale deed dated 14-10-2009. The registered sale document shows that the sale consideration was ₹ 20.23 lakhs but not ₹ 33.13 lakhs. The registered sale deed is a valid and undisputed evidence as for as sale consideration is concerned. Since, both the parties of the purchaser and seller have accepted and registered the document for the sale consideration before the Sub-Registrar the same canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92, once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of section 91, then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/varying the terms of a document can be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear, then in the instant case, ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed had to be accepted and it could not be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity in reaching to the conclusion that the amount shown in the reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to assess the short term capital gains of ₹ 11,17,500/- in the hands of the assessee, which is in appeal before us. 12. During the appeal proceedings before us, Ld AR appearing for the assessee argued that the property was belonging to Smt. Vanaja, acquired by her (Smt Vanaja) from her own sources and sold by her. Only sale proceeds were deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Since, the property was belonging to the assessee s wife, Smt Vanaja, which is evident from the purchase document and the sale document, the capital gains, if any, required to be assessed in the hands of Smt Vanaja, but not in the hands of the assessee. 13. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). 14. We heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
