A Kolkata woman has successfully challenged an income tax assessment after proving her husband alone funded a jointly purchased property. According to reports from Mint, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata deleted a ₹7,09,781 tax addition made in her hands under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ruling was delivered on 20 August 2026 by the Kolkata bench comprising Judicial Member Yogesh Kumar U.S. and Accountant Member Rakesh Mishra.
The dispute arose from an immovable property purchased jointly by the assessee, Mrs Shome, and her husband. As reported by Mint, the purchase consideration stated in the transaction was ₹16,31,438, while the market value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority was ₹30,51,000. The difference between the two values was approximately ₹14.20 lakh. The tax department treated 50% of this difference, or ₹7,09,781, as income in the wife's hands under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), which deals with situations where immovable property is acquired for inadequate consideration compared with its stamp-duty value.
According to Mint, the woman produced evidence during assessment proceedings to support her claim that the purchase consideration had been paid entirely by her husband. The ITAT noted that the payment trail supported the wife's contention, and recorded that the Revenue had not made any further enquiry by issuing notice to her husband, even though she had consistently maintained that he had funded the entire purchase. The tribunal also noted that the husband's name appeared first in the sale deed as purchaser, which became central to the decision because it was necessary to determine whether she had actually contributed to the acquisition.
As reported by Mint, the tribunal referred to Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which deals with the respective interests of persons who jointly acquire property. The provision provides for an equal-interest presumption when there is no evidence about the respective interests or amounts contributed by the purchasers. However, the tribunal found that such evidence was available in this case, as the payment records showed the entire consideration had been paid by the husband. The tribunal held that the presumption of equal ownership could not be applied to the wife when the evidence demonstrated she had not contributed towards the purchase.
According to Mint, the assessment was reopened after the department received information concerning the property transaction, and a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued. An assessment order under Section 147 was subsequently passed on 30 May 2023, making the ₹7,09,781 addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). The case relates to the woman's assessment for the relevant assessment year arising from the financial year 2014-15 transaction. The ruling highlights the importance of properly documenting source of funds and payment trails when property is purchased jointly with unequal contributions.
