AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 11.09.2020 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] confirming/upholding the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-5, Delhi ("AO") is bad in law. 2. That contrary to the facts on record and in disregard of settled law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,80,000/- on account of Notional Rent of self-occupied house property fully assessed in the hands of her husband, in which the contribution of the appellant was only 5.4% of the total purchase consideration." 2.1. Ground No. 1 is general. 2.2. Ground No. 2 is being adjudicated herein bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Engineering Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner [1997] 58 TTJ 27 (Ahmedabad) held that in the absence of any better way of estimating the rent, the rate of interest on cost of building and land may provide a reasonable basis for determining the annual letting value of property, more particularly when the property is occupied by the owners themselves or by their close relatives. It was held that in view of the size of the properly, its quality of construction and the capital invested thereon, the action of the authorities below, fixing the ALV at 8 per cent return on the cost is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for. The Assessing Officer has estimated ALV of the property at Rs. 28,00,000/- which is reasonable from which standard de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able. Drawing our attention to the payment schedule appearing at page 24 of the assessee's Paper Book, the Ld. DR pointed out that no name has been mentioned and the entire consideration of Rs. 3.50 crores was paid by the vendee, namely both the co-owners husband and wife. Only inference of 5.4% share of wife is drawn from payment made by her. Otherwise in the entire sale deed, there is no definite and ascertainable share of the coowners. The mutation is in the name of both husband and wife. 10. In rebuttal, the Ld. AR submitted that payment made by the wife evidenced by the bank statement appearing at page 19 of the Paper Book has not been disputed by the Ld. AO. 11. We have given careful thought to the rival submission of the partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts 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 the property is determined as per the mutation record and the sale deed nowhe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of co-owners are not specified at all. 15. It is interesting to note that in C.K. Malik's case (supra) there is reference of decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Saiyad Abdulla vs. Ahmad AIR 1929 All 817, and the Tribunal observed that in this authority it is held as under: "In the absence of specification of the shares purchased by two persons in the sale deed, it must be held that both purchased equal shares." 16. In the case at hand also there is sale deed and the co-ownership is evidenced therein but there is no specification of shares of the husband and wife in the sale deed. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Saiyad Abdulla's case (supra), it must be held that husband and wif....