Appeal dismissed, Rs. 9,80,000 added to assessee's income based on joint ownership in sale deed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- in the assessee's hands. The decision was based on the joint ownership evidenced in the sale deed without specified shares, leading to an equal ownership assumption. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and upheld the CIT(A)'s and AO's decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's decision.
2. Addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- on account of notional rent of self-occupied house property.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the CIT(A)'s Order:
The appeal by the assessee challenges the CIT(A)'s order dated 11.09.2020, which upheld the AO's order dated 30.12.2019. The assessee contends that the CIT(A)'s order is "bad in law." The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- on account of notional rent from a property jointly owned by the assessee and her husband.

2. Addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- on Account of Notional Rent:
The case involves a search conducted on 28.11.2017, revealing the purchase of property J-278, Saket, Delhi, jointly owned by the assessee and her husband. The AO, during the assessment, noted that the sale deed did not specify the ownership shares, leading to the assumption of a 50-50 ownership split. The AO computed the annual letting value (ALV) at 8% of the property's cost, resulting in an income from house property of Rs. 19,60,000/-, of which Rs. 9,80,000/- was assessed in the assessee's hands.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that "ownership of a property is a condition precedent for levy of tax" and that the appellant was "joint owner of the property along with her husband." The CIT(A) relied on several case laws, including R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. CIT and Kaur Singh v. CIT, to support the decision.

The assessee argued that her contribution was only 5.4% of the total purchase consideration and that taxing 50% of the house property income in her hands was unjustified. She cited section 26 of the Act, which allows for the assessment of income based on definite and ascertainable shares of co-owners. The assessee relied on the Allahabad Bench's decision in ACIT vs. C.K. Malik and the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Roy.

The Revenue argued that the sale deed did not specify the co-owners' shares, and the entire consideration was paid jointly by the husband and wife. The AO and CIT(A) held that in the absence of specific shares in the sale deed, ownership is assumed to be equal.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's stance, citing the sale deed's lack of specific shares and the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in Saiyad Abdulla vs. Ahmad, which held that in the absence of specified shares, ownership is assumed to be equal. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not a housewife and had a substantial income, differentiating her case from Ajit Kumar Roy's case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- in the assessee's hands. The decision was based on the joint ownership evidenced in the sale deed without specified shares, leading to an equal ownership assumption. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and upheld the CIT(A)'s and AO's decisions. The order was pronounced on 5th January 2023.

---