Onus to explain investment sources by wife discharged when she and her husband both admitted that husbands paid the money – ITAT
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3644 (2023) (01) ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the addition as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Pursuant to a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, the premises and locker of the assessee was covered.
Accordingly, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee, in response to which, the assessee e-filed her return of income.
During the course of search proceedings at the residence of the husband of the assessee, payment receipt for purchase of property was found and seized.
As per the said receipt, the flat was purchased in the name of the assessee.
However, as per the sale deed, it was found that the said property was purchased for a consideration lower than as compared to the seized receipt.
When the said difference was confronted to the assessee, the assessee in her statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act submitted that she is not aware of the said deal and that all the matters pertaining to the said deal were handled by her husband.
he Assessing Officer dismissed the reply of the assessee and made the impugned addition.
The Tribunal observed that the statement of the husband of the assessee was also recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on the very same day and in his statement, the husband had emphatically accepted that he had paid the difference amount for purchase of the impugned property in the name of his wife. There was no quarrel that the assessee was not having any independent source of income other than house property, capital gain and other source.
The Tribunal opined that when in search proceedings the wife categorically admitted that payment was done by her husband and on the very same moment, the husband also admitted that he has made the payment, then the wife successfully discharged the onus to explain the source of investment.
The Tribunal opined that in so far as the husband of the assessee was concerned, the Department was/is free to take any action as per the provisions of law.
Accordingly, it was held that the addition u/s 69 was not sustainable in the hands of the assessee and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the same.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Penalty set aside as Tax Audit Report not filed due to strained relationship with CA
- Unless request made, personal hearing not mandatory in faceless assessment – Patna HC
- Mere technical mistake in return cannot be a ground of disallowing a claim
- Capital gain deduction u/s 54B for land purchased in wife’s name SC stays HC Order
- Surrounding circumstances, prudent investor behaviour key to creditworthiness
