9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the capital gains should be treated as long-term or short-term, considering the usage of a flat as a business asset. Analysis: The appeal involved a partnership firm dealing in Non-Ferrous metals with a branch in Bombay. The firm purchased a flat in Bombay for Rs. 1,01,971 in 1974. Initially, the firm capitalized the cost of the building as its office and claimed depreciation until 1995-96. Subsequently, the flat was recorded as an investment in the firm's books as it was no longer used for business purposes. In 1998, the flat, along with other assets, was sold for Rs. 71 lakhs, incurring additional expenses of Rs. 3,52,000 for the transfer. The firm reported long-term capital gains on the sale, which the Assessing Officer disputed, treating it as short-term capital gains under section 50A of the Income-tax Act. During the first appeal, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the short-term capital gains assessment, stating that the flat was used as a branch office and dismissing the claim of non-usage as an attempt to circumvent section 50A. The firm then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the capital gains should be considered long-term. The ITAT analyzed the situation, noting that the firm had treated the flat as an investment in its balance sheets post-1995 and had not claimed depreciation. The Assessing Officer's refusal to accept the firm's post-sale accounting entries lacked supporting evidence or information against the firm's records. The ITAT emphasized the principle that a person cannot be compelled to prove a negative, rejecting the lower authorities' presumption that the flat was used for business purposes post-1995. It concluded that the flat was a long-term capital asset at the time of sale, regardless of past business use and depreciation claims. The provisions of section 50A were deemed applicable only to adjust the cost of acquisition, not to alter the asset's character. Therefore, the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to treat the capital gains as long-term and revise the assessment in favor of the firm. In summary, the ITAT allowed the appeal, determining that the capital gains on the sale of the flat should be considered long-term based on the firm's treatment of the asset as an investment post-1995, despite past business use and depreciation claims.
|
