9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the purchase as well as sale deeds only for ensuring that the property gets easily transferred to Tricia Batliwala after her death, does not and cannot change the legal position. If title of an immovable property stands in the name of two persons, it evidences both as co-owners. One of such persons cannot claim himself as sole owner nor can he unilaterally transfer the said property by claiming that he was indeed the sole owner and the name of the other person was included just as a nominee and not as a co-owner. It is title of the immovable property which is decisive of ownership and not the understanding outside the records which both the parties may have entered into. In fact, registration of an immovable property is a proof of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to capital loss, was jointly owned by the assessee and her daughter. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that the assessee filed her return declaring loss of ₹ 81,60,800/- which was claimed as long term capital loss arising from transfer of a flat at Raheja Woods. Such flat was sold for a sum of ₹ 1.00 crore with indexed cost of acquisition determined at ₹ 1,81,60,800/- resulting into long term capital loss of ₹ 81,60,800/-. The Assessing Officer, after examining the sale deed as well as the purchase deed of the property transferred, observed that the assessee was a co-owner of the property and not the sole owner. On being show-caused, the assessee submitted that full investment in purchase of fl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for a sum of ₹ 1.00 crore on 19.09.2015. A copy of the sale deed again referring to the assessee and her daughter as sellers, is available at page 44 of the paper book. Payment at the time of purchase of property came from a bank account which was jointly operated by the assessee and her daughter. Similarly, at the time of sale of the property, the sale consideration went back into a bank account jointly operated by the assessee and her daughter. These facts evidently demonstrate that Tricia Batliwala was joint owner along with the assessee at the time of purchase as well as the sale. The contention put forth on behalf of the assessee that she included the name of her daughter in the purchase as well as sale deeds only for ensuri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire capital gain/loss in the hands of the assessee. Reliance placed by the ld. AR on the judgment in the case of S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO, (2018) 409 ITR 157 (Bom) is misconceived. The challenge in that case was to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the Hon ble High Court upholding validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, it is vivid that the Hon ble High Court did not accord its imprimatur to the factual matrix of the case which was to be decided by the Assessing Officer in due course thereafter. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee s claim. The impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
