2018 (1) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The AO had ignored the fact that purchase of house made in joint name and by ignoring this fact all the payment in cash for Rs. 15,00,000/- treated as made by the assessee. 3. The AO had ignored that the both purchaser of residential house was having NIL capital on the date of purchase. The assessee and his wife are income tax payer from last 10 years and savings out of Income/Stridhan treated NIL. 4. The AO erred in law by treating all payment in cash have been made by the assessee while 50% of Rs. 15,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 7,50,000/- made by wife of assessee. Payment made by the wife not to be treated as payment made by the assessee u/s 69B. 5. The assessee request to relief by deleting the demand on additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... averment has not been supported by any documentary evidence. The evidence of neither opening capital nor current capital has been furnished. It is stated in the reply that 'details of working of availability of this cash of Rs. 7,50,000/- is assessed' but no such annexure has been enclosed. Hence, the arguments put forth by the assessee to explain the source of cash payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-plus stamp duty Rs. 2,35,000/- Plus registration charges Rs. 10,000/- are not substantiated and remain unexplained. Considering the reply of the assessee and confrontation during the course of proceedings an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/-is made in his income. (Issue penalty notice u/s 271(l)(c) separately) Addition of Rs.15,00,000/- The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. However, the arguments and submissions did not find favour with the CIT(A). Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. Ld.AR assailed the conclusion of the CIT(A) stating that the explanation has been arbitrarily rejected and ignoring the fact that admittedly both the husband and the wife have regularly been assessed to tax over the years. Thus the insistence of the department to sustain the entire addition in the hands of the assessee it was submitted is not justified. Part of the investment it was submitted has been made by the assesse's wife who is on independent assessee in her own right. 5. Ld.Sr. DR relied upon the impugned order. 6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eing arbitrary and thus unsustainable. I am of the view that the explanation offered consistently before the tax authorities supported by evidence should have been considered keeping in mind the socio-economic realities and aspirations of a lower middle-class or middle-class Indian family to purchase and own at least one residential house during their life time. The emotional decision taken to fulfill this overwhelmingly compelling need of owning at least one family residential house at times is often not a decision based on sound prudent financial planning. Like decisions of Indian families often to rashly overspend on marriages of children as a status symbol to impress the society. The decision to buy a family home are equally emotional d....