This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai, dated

31.03.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2 I.T.A. No.1922/Mds/14

2. The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of `30 lakhs under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

3. Shri Anandd Babunath, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessees husband purchased a property through power of attorney agent during the previous year 2006-07 for a sum of `10 lakhs. Since the assessees husband felt that the power of attorney may be cancelled at any time, he opted to register the sale deed in her name. Therefore, the document was registered in the name of the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, though in the sale document, the consideration was shown at `30 lakhs and paid stamp duty for registration, there was no consideration passed on between the assessee and her husband. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, there cannot be any addition during the year under consideration.

4. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold the property to the extent of `14 lakhs, which was available with her. The assessees husband paid `10 lakhs to the vendor. Therefore, these amounts have to be deducted while making addition, if any. According to the Ld. representative, this submission is an alternative 3 I.T.A. No.1922/Mds/14 one. According to the Ld. representative, if `24 lakhs was allowed, what was unexplained is only `6 lakhs.

5. On the contrary, Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee purchased a property from one Shri R. Venkatesan for `30 lakhs and as per the sale deed, the assessee has paid a sum of `30 lakhs to the vendor. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessees husband is the power of attorney agent of the vendor and the transaction was between vendor and the assessee. Therefore, the consideration was passed from the assessee to the said Shri Venkatesan. The assessee cannot now say that there was no consideration passed on from her. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not filed any details regarding sale proceeds of the property and availability of funds. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly rejected the claim of the assessee to the extent of `24 lakhs said to be available with her.

6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. The copy of the sale deed, which is available at page 14 of the paper-book, shows that the sale consideration passed from the assessee to Shri Venkatesan was `30 lakhs. The assessee claims that in fact there was no sale 4 I.T.A. No.1922/Mds/14 consideration. It is not known how the sale deed could be executed without any consideration. At page 18 of the paper-book, the assessee has filed copy of the power of attorney said to be executed by Shri R. Venkatesan in favour of the assessees husband. This power of attorney does not say anything about payment of `10 lakhs by the assessees husband. The assessee has also filed another supportive document at page 24 of the paper- book claiming that the assessees husband has paid `10 lakhs, since the said Shri Venkatesan agreed to sell the land to the assessees husband for a sum of `10 lakhs. If the recitals in the supportive document are true, then there is no impediment for the assessees husband to get the document executed in his name and get it registered directly from the said Shri Venkatesan. Instead of getting the document in his name, it is not known why the assessees husband should execute the document in the name of the present assessee. Therefore, the entire claim of the assessee appears to be suspicious and it cannot be relied upon. Moreover, when the sale deed executed by Shri Venkatesan through his power agent clearly says that the sale consideration was `30 lakhs, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee cannot lead any further evidence to controvert the contents of this document unless the vendor executes a rectification 5 I.T.A. No.1922/Mds/14 deed to rectify the statement, if any wrongly made in the sale deed. In the absence of any rectification deed, the recital in the sale deed has to be taken as correct. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee has actually paid `30 lakhs for purchasing the land from the said Shri Venkatesan and the document was executed by her husband in his capacity as power of attorney of Shri Venkatesan. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed.

7. Now coming to the claim of availability of funds, though the assessee claims that she sold the property for `14 lakhs, she could not furnish any details before the CIT(Appeals) inspite of sufficient opportunities given to her. Even before this Tribunal, the assessee could not file any details for transfer of land and could not establish the availability of funds to the extent of `14 lakhs. In the absence of required material, this Tribunal cannot act upon the oral statement made by the assessee regarding the sale of the property and availability of `14 lakhs with her.

8. Now coming to the payment of `10 lakhs said to have been paid by the assessees husband, the sale deed does not say any payment made by the assessees husband. The Assessing Officer 6 I.T.A. No.1922/Mds/14 found that even if the payment was made by the assessees husband, then the sale consideration may be `40 lakhs and not `30 lakhs. In the absence of material, this Tribunal cannot allow the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the lower authority is confirmed.

9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 3 rd July, 2015 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (. ) (... ) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) /Accountant Member  /Judicial Member /Chennai, 4/Dated, the 3 rd July, 2015. Kri. . ,56 76 /Copy to:

1. +/Appellant

2. ,-+ /Respondent

3. 8 ()/CIT(A)-VI, Chennai-34

4. 8/CIT-V, Chennai-34

5. 6 , /DR

6. /GF.