1996 (1) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the payment of Rs. 30,000 made to the assessee's sisters in accordance with the terms of the will should be deducted in computing the capital gains arising from the sale of the property.
2. Interpretation of "cost of acquisition" and "cost of improvement" under sections 48, 49, and 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Application of previous judicial decisions to the current case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deductibility of Rs. 30,000 in Computing Capital Gains:

The primary issue was whether the payment of Rs. 30,000 to the assessee's sisters, as stipulated in the father's will, could be deducted from the capital gains arising from the sale of the property. The Tribunal disallowed this deduction, stating that the amount did not qualify as "cost of acquisition" or "cost of improvement" under section 55 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the payment had already been made in 1960, and it was not a charge at the time of sale. The Tribunal concluded that there was no provision for allowing this amount as a deduction in the computation of capital gains.

2. Interpretation of "Cost of Acquisition" and "Cost of Improvement":

The court analyzed sections 48, 49, and 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which define the mode of computation of capital gains and the allowable deductions. Section 48 specifies deductions including the cost of acquisition and the cost of any improvement. Section 49 deals with the cost of acquisition in cases where the property is acquired under a will, stating that the cost should be deemed as the cost to the previous owner. Section 55 further defines "cost of improvement" as expenditure of a capital nature incurred for making any additions or alterations to the capital asset.

3. Application of Previous Judicial Decisions:

The court referred to several previous decisions:

- CIT v. V. Indira [1979] 119 ITR 837: This case held that amounts paid to improve the title of the property do not qualify as "cost of acquisition" or "cost of improvement" as defined under the Act.
- Smt. S. Valliammai v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 713 [FB]: The Full Bench held that estate duty paid cannot be treated as part of the cost of acquisition since the title was not defective or incomplete.
- Ambat Echukutty Menon v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 880 (Ker): The court held that clearing a mortgage does not qualify as "cost of improvement" since it does not add to the capital asset.
- CIT v. C. V. Soundararajan [1984] 150 ITR 80: This case supported the assessee's view, allowing deduction of amounts paid to obtain a relinquishment of rights over the property.
- CIT v. Daksha Ramanlal [1992] 197 ITR 123 (Guj): The Gujarat High Court held that payment to discharge a mortgage should be considered as part of the cost of acquisition, dissenting from the Kerala and Madras High Court views.

The court also considered the passage from Kanga and Palkhivala's "Law and Practice of Income Tax," which argued that the cost of acquisition should include payments made to clear encumbrances.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the payment of Rs. 30,000 to the assessee's sisters could not be added to the cost of acquisition under section 55(2) of the Act. The court held that the provisions of section 55(2) are clear and do not allow for such an addition. The court also noted that the payment did not improve the asset physically or otherwise. Therefore, the court answered the question in the affirmative and against the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →