TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT] relied upon by the Ld. AR also does not help the assessee. In that case, the assessee s wife had purchased a flat in her name but she being the housewife did not have independent source of income and the entire investment was made by the assessee (husband). It was in such a scenario that the Hon ble Calcutta High Court held that the income from property should be taxed in the hands of the assessee (husband) and not in the hands of his wife. In the case before us, the property has been purchased by husband and wife in co-ownership jointly. The assessee is not a housewife. Computation of income for AY 2015-16 appearing at page 2 of Paper Book shows that she is salary earner and earned salary of Rs. 24 lacs from Adam Smith Associates Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2015-16. Therefore, on facts the case of the assessee before us differs from the Ajit Kumar Rao s case (supra). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1642/Del/2020 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2023 - SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Sahil Sharma, Advocate Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advocate For the Department : Shri H.K. Choudhary,CIT-DR ORDER PER ASTHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, ownership of the property would be considered 50-50 and taxed as per section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Since the assessee did not provide any expected reasonable rent of the property, he assessed the annual letting value at 8% of the cost of property as shown in the sale deed and computed income from house property as under: Value of property as per details submitted by the assessee (jointly owned) 3,50,00,000/- Gross ALV @ 8% of above value 28,00,000 Standard deduction @ 30% u/s 24a 840000 Income from house property 1960000 Income assessable in hands of the assessee (50% share) 980000 5.1 Accordingly, the Ld. AO taxed the assessee s share of 50% amounting to Rs. 9,80,000/- in her hands. 6. Aggrieved, appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned addition by observing as under: 4.1.5 I have considered above facts as well as submissions of the appellant. As per the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, the ownership of a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 7. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has made investment of 5.4% amounting to Rs. 20 lacs. However, it is customary to include wife s name in the sale deed. The property is in the name of both husband and wife but the amount contributed by the wife is only 5.4% of the total investment. Therefore, taxing 50% of house property income in the hands of the assessee is not justified. Referring to section 26 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that since shares of husband and wife who are co-owner of the property are definite and ascertainable, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost, can at best be brought to tax to the extent of 5.4% only. He relied on the decision of Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in ACIT vs. C.K. Malik (2004) 89 ITD 249 (Alld) and the decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal). 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that ownership in the property is determined as per the mutation records. The sale deed nowhere specified the share of the co-owners. Therefore, share of co-owners is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,00,000/- IDBI Bank Ltd. M/s Dayal Projects Pvt. Ltd. 474480 7/3/2011 16,50,000/- Axis Bank Ltd. M/s Dayal Projects Pvt. Ltd. 1451395 7/3/2011 3,50,000/- Citibank N.A. M/s Dayal Projects Pvt. Ltd. 686337 8/3/2011 2,80,00,000/- Axis Bank Ltd. M/s Dayal Projects Pvt. Ltd. The copy of sale deed appears at pages 20-31 of the Paper Book. 13. On perusal of the sale deed, the Ld. AO was of the view that the shareholding has not been defined between the co-owners. The Ld. CIT(A) has also recorded the finding in para 4.1.5. of his appellate order that the assessee was joint owner of the property alongwith her husband and that the sale deed did not specify the percentage of ownership. It was for this reason that the Ld. AO held the assessee to be 50% owner of the property. The Ld. DR also highlighted the fact that the ownership in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o tax 50% of the income from house property in the hands of the assessee. 17. The decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in Ajit Kumar Rao s case (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR also does not help the assessee. In that case, the assessee s wife had purchased a flat in her name but she being the housewife did not have independent source of income and the entire investment was made by the assessee (husband). It was in such a scenario that the Hon ble Calcutta High Court held that the income from property should be taxed in the hands of the assessee (husband) and not in the hands of his wife. In the case before us, the property has been purchased by husband and wife in co-ownership jointly. The assessee is not a housewife. Computation of income for AY 2015-16 appearing at page 2 of Paper Book shows that she is salary earner and earned salary of Rs. 24 lacs from Adam Smith Associates Pvt. Ltd. in AY 2015-16. Therefore, on facts the case of the assessee before us differs from the Ajit Kumar Rao s case (supra). 18. For the reasons set out above, we find no substance in ground No. 2 of the assessee and reject the same. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
