2022 (6) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12 admitting total income of Rs..8,15,920/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.08.2013 was issued. Further notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that during the year under consideration, on the date of 14.9.2011, a sale deed was registered in the name of the assessee, (the vendor being her husband) for a consideration of Rs..75,00,000/-. The market val....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roperty was transferred in the assessee's name. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the purchase consideration of Rs..75,00,000/- being the value of investment as deemed to be the income of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee's husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the actual vendor of the impugned property is not Mr. V. Sekar, as is claimed, but Mr. S.V. Rajagopal is the actual owner of the property and Mr. V. Sekar is only the power agent acting on behalf of Mr. S.V. Rajagopal. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the transaction is not a "family transaction" as is being claimed. The ld. CIT(A) has further observed that even if it is presumed for a moment that the vendor is Mr. V. Sekar, husband of the assessee, the claim that the sale consideration of Rs..75.00 lakhs was not received by the vendor is unproved and is difficult to believe in the light of the fact that the Sale Deed expressly states the facts to the contrary. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A....