The husband’s bank statements and the property documents confirmed that he was the actual buyer, so the wife contended that the tax evasion notice should not be directed at her. However, the Income Tax Assessing Officer ignored her argument and issued a notice to her anyway.
As a result, both she and her husband received a tax notice under Section 148. While the Bombay High Court granted relief to the wife in this case (as detailed in this article), the notice sent to the husband is still pending and will be addressed in a separate case.
The Bombay High Court judge said (extract): “When we look at all these documents, we fail to understand how the Assessing Officer could have come to the conclusion that in relation to this transaction, as far as the Petitioner (wife) is concerned, any income had escaped assessment for A.Y. 2021-22. In fact, the Petitioner fairly stated that her income for that assessment year was only Rs 4,36,850. She further stated before the Income Tax Department that she has not contributed anything towards purchase of the said flat and the entire consideration was paid by her husband.”
Read the story to understand why both the husband and wife got implicated in this tax evasion case and how the wife found relief. This article also discusses what steps joint property owners can take to avoid similar tax notices and other problems.
How did this case start?
According to Bombay High Court judgement dated August 4, 2025, here’s a timeline of events:
- 2021-22: The wife filed an income tax return (ITR) for AY 2021-22 (FY 2020-21) declaring her income as Rs 4 lakh (4,36,850).
- June 21, 2024: A Notice dated June 21, 2024 under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be issued to the wife. According to this Notice, it was stated that the Income Tax Department had information regarding a purchase of an immovable property (financial transaction) which could have an implication on the taxable income. Further, details with respect to purchase of the said immovable property (flat) for Rs. 6.75 crore was also sought.
- July 3, 2024: In reply to this Notice, the wife explained that she was a house-wife and that the purchase of the said immovable property (flat) was done entirely by the husband from his own funds/sources and not by her. It was stated by the wife that her name was added as a joint second owner of the flat purely for the sake of convenience.
- September 18, 2024: In reply to the wife’s response, the Income Tax Department issued a fresh notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By this Notice, she was asked to submit the purchase deed with respect to the said flat, as well as payment details along with the bank statement of the husband.
- 2024: The income tax department issued her a preliminary verification report and in this said report, a brief background of the original Section 133 (6) notice was also given.
- March 31, 2025: Notice under Section 148 was issued in her name and it is against this notice she filed an appeal in Bombay High Court.
- August 4, 2025: Bombay High Court cancels the notice issued by the tax department to the wife.
Bombay High Court: Notice issued to wife for husband’s house purchase is unsustainable
Justice B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla of Bombay High Court said:
- “When we look at all these documents, we fail to understand how the Assessing Officer (AO) could have come to the conclusion that in relation to this transaction, as far as the Petitioner (wife) is concerned, any income had escaped assessment for A.Y. 2021-22. In fact, the Petitioner (wife) fairly stated that her income for that assessment year was only Rs 4,36,850.”
- “She further stated before the Income Tax Department that she has not contributed anything towards purchase of the said flat and the entire consideration was paid by her husband. This is duly corroborated from the bank statement of her husband.”
- “Once this is the case, we are clearly of the view that as far as this transaction is concerned, the Officer issuing the Section 148 Notice could never have had reason to believe that income of the Petitioner had escaped assessment for A.Y. 2021-22.”
- “Ironically, in the facts of the present case, Notice under Section 148 had also been issued to the husband of the Petitioner, pursuant to Notices issued under Section 133(6) to the husband, alleging escapement of income for the very same transaction. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the Notice under Section 148 issued to the Petitioner (wife) is wholly unsustainable.”
Judgement: “In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Notice issued under Section 148 [to the Petitioner –wife] cannot be sustained.”
Bombay High Court cites these legal precedents to decide the case in wife’s favour
Justice B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla of Bombay High Court said:
“In the view that we take, we are supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Kalpita Arun Lanjekar Vs. Income Tax Officer (2024) 160 taxmann.com 726 (Bombay):
- “In this decision (160 taxmann.com 726) also the Assessee was a housewife, who had no income and a flat was purchased by her husband in the joint name of himself and the wife. The wife’s name was joined purely for the sake of convenience.”
- “In these facts, the Court noted that the only basis for issuing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was that the Assessee (wife) had not submitted the details of source of the money paid for purchase of property by her husband, especially when the husband’s income was only Rs 18,49,980.”
- “This Court (Bombay HC) in fact noted the concession made on behalf of the Department that these details have to be sourced from her husband’s assessment and not from the wife because the Assessing Officer had accepted that the wife had not made any payment for purchase of the property. It is in this light the Division Bench in the case of Kalpita Arun Lanjekar (supra) quashed and set aside the order dated 31st March 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
What precautions can joint property owners take to prevent such kinds of tax notices and other issues?
ET Wealth Online consulted various experts on what steps joint homeowners can take to prevent this type of problem. Here’s their advice:
Chartered Accountant (Dr.) Suresh Surana, says: “When joint ownership of property is involved, it often raises questions regarding the responsibilities of each co-owner. Joint property owners can take the following precautions to avoid tax-related issues and notices:
- Clearly Define Financial Contribution in the deed – It is essential to explicitly state each co-owner’s financial contribution in the purchase agreement deed. Additionally, it is important to include the percentage of ownership of each of the owner. If one party funds a larger portion or the entire cost of the property, this should be clearly recorded. Proper documentation of ownership proportions helps avoid disputes and ensures transparency in the eyes of tax authorities.
- Maintain Comprehensive Financial Records – All financial transactions related to the acquisition of the property such as bank transfers, loan agreements, and payment receipts should be thoroughly documented and safely stored. These records serve as proof of the source and legitimacy of funds used, and they are critical in the event of scrutiny or inquiry from tax officials.
- File Tax Returns Accurately and Transparently – When filing ITR, ensure that all property-related information is reported accurately. If a co-owner has been added solely for convenience and has not made any financial contribution, this should be clearly stated in any communication with tax authorities. Transparent disclosure reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation and unwarranted tax implications.
Chartered Accountant Ashish Karundia, says: The necessary precautions will depend on the status of the co-owner—specifically, whether the individual has contributed funds toward the property’s purchase, or if their name has been added purely out of love, affection, care, or for security purposes.
- If the co-owner has contributed funds, and the source of such funds is a gift, it is essential to formally document the transaction through a gift deed. The ownership share in the property should be reflected in both individuals’ respective Income Tax Returns (ITRs), along with the corresponding share of rental income and capital gains. Income arising from such ownership may be subject to clubbing provisions depending upon the source of the gift.
- In cases where the contribution is by way of a loan, the loan arrangement should be properly documented with a loan agreement, including key terms such as repayment schedule, applicable interest (if any), and other relevant conditions. Again, the respective ownership share, along with related rental income and capital gains, must be disclosed in both co-owners’ ITRs.
- Conversely, if the co-owner’s name is included solely out of love, affection, care, or for security reasons, without any financial contribution, the agreement should clearly state this, along with a declaration that the entire purchase consideration is funded by the primary co-owner. In such cases, the property, as well as any rental or capital gains income, should be reported exclusively in the primary owner’s ITR.
- While discrepancies between ownership documentation and tax filings may raise queries, such inconsistencies can be reasonably explained if proper documentation is maintained. Therefore, it is advisable to clearly record the mutual understanding and follow a consistent and transparent approach.
What is the significance of this judgement for homeowners?
ET Wealth Online asked various experts about the significance of this judgement for homeowners. Here’s what they said:
Priya Dhankhar, Counsel, SKV Law Offices, says: By way of this judgment, the Bombay High Court has effectively held that adding a spouse or family member as a joint property owner purely for convenience should not expose them to tax proceedings, provided they have made no financial contribution.
The Bombay High Court has made it clear that tax authorities must focus on the actual source of funds and cannot act merely on the basis of joint ownership. This ruling essentially protects innocent family members from unjustified tax liability and is a major relief for genuine cases, especially homemakers and dependents, who possess legal title without financial assistance. The Bombay High Court has taken a gender-sensitive stance, acknowledging the legitimacy of adding family members’ names to property titles for pragmatic reasons which is a common practice in Indian families.
Aditya Chopra, Managing Partner, The Victoriam Legalis (TVL) says: This judgment significantly administers safeguards against arbitrary reassessments under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by insisting on tangible evidence of income escapement rather than mere assumptions from joint property ownership.
It clarifies that nominal joint owners, such as non-contributing housewives in family transactions, cannot face reassessment if documentary proof (e.g., bank statements) showing no financial involvement, thereby protecting vulnerable individuals from undue tax scrutiny.
Building on the precedent of Kalpita Arun Lanjekar (2024), this may contribute towards reducing litigation in similar cases involving high-value assets flagged via automated systems. Administratively, it urges the Income Tax Department to differentiate between actual payers and nominal holders, curbing redundant notices and promoting fairer enforcement.
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, says: It has been held that to clearly record in the sale deed or a separate declaration that the non-contributing owner has no beneficial interest and made no payment.
All payments should be from the paying party’s bank account with receipts, bank statements, and proof of fund source. Gift Deed to be executed (if treated as a gift) or a sworn affidavit confirming the true funding source. One can disclose in their ITR as Joint Ownership clarifying funding to pre-empt scrutiny. If asked, promptly submit sale deeds, bank statements, and supporting documents of the paying party.
Significance of the Judgment:
- The Income Tax Department must verify the source of funds from the actual payer, not a nominal joint owner.
- Prevents unwarranted reassessment of spouses or relatives added only for convenience.
- Along with Kalpita Arun Lanjekar, forms strong authority to quash arbitrary Section 148 notices in similar cases.
- Limits the scope for misuse of reassessment powers without genuine “reason to believe.”
- Encourages taxpayers to document and disclose real ownership and payment sources to avoid disputes.
CA (Dr.) Suresh Surana, says: This recent judgment carries significant implications in the realm of tax law, particularly concerning joint property ownership and the scope of reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It not only addresses the rights of individuals who are co-owners in name but not in financial contribution but also reinforces the procedural safeguards that tax authorities must observe. The ruling provides much-needed clarity, and sets a precedent for similar future cases, and strengthens the framework for fair and evidence-based tax assessments. Below are the key takeaways that highlight the broader impact of this decision:
1. Clarification on Joint Property Ownership: It clarifies the legal situation where there are multiple joint owners of a property who did not contribute to the purchase. The court acknowledged that just being a co-owner for convenience does not justify reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act if the person did not contribute to buying the property.
The ruling offers protection for people who might co-own a property but aren’t part of its funding or financing. It ensures that these won’t be unjustly targeted in tax issues just because their name appears on property documents.
2. Reinforcement of Proper Reassessment Procedures: The judgment reiterates the importance of having legitimate reasons to issue reassessment notices under Section 148. Tax authorities cannot issue such notices based on vague assumptions, without evidence that the income has actually escaped assessment.
This ruling could set a significant precedent for similar situations where people are mistakenly assessed or targeted due to their name is listed on a property deed, even if they have no financial stake. It reinforces the principle that tax assessments must be based on factual and verifiable evidence, not assumptions. The judgment guides tax authorities to carefully examine the reasons for revisiting assessments and highlights that baseless allegation of income tax evasion will not be upheld in court.
