TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (12) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proached the Chief Promotor of the said Society with a view to make his wife a member of the said Society. The Society however, told him that a person can become a member of the Society if he is a Technocrat. On 2nd Feb., 1972 the assessee and his wife wrote a letter to the Chief Promotor of the said Society that he (the assessee) being a technocrat should be admitted as a Member. However, his wife will be the joint holder of the Flat and will finance for the Flat from her own funds/loans. In this way the assessee and his wife became Member of the said Society (jointly). The construction work started in 1975 and the possession of the Flat was given in 1978. Rs. 1,41,682 were invested in the said Flat. Therefore, the assessee resigned as a M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He, therefore, brought to tax Rs. 7,242 in the hands of the assessee. 6. In appeal, the assessee reiterated the submissions which were made before the ITO and strongly urged that since in the case of his wife the Revenue has accepted that the Flat in question belonged to her and that income therefrom was assessed in her hands in respect of the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80, there was no justification on the part of the ITO to include 50 per cent of the income of the said Flat in the total income of the assessee. In this connection, the assessee had also placed before the CIT(A) the necessary material which was already on the record of the Revenue in the case of the assessee's wife. The CIT(A) however, more or less adopting the resigns of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat she had taken loan of Rs. 67,503 from her husband which was accepted by the concerned WTO. He, therefore, urged that the addition of Rs. 7,242 should be deleted from the total income of the assessee. 8. The learned representative of the Department, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the IT authorities and justified their action. He also stressed the point that both the bank accounts were in the joint name of the assessee and his wife and the assessee's name appeared first. According to him, whatever amount was deposited in such account that would belong to the assessee only and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee's wife was in a position to invest the entire amount of Rs. 1,41,682 in the Flat in question. ....