9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of capital gains in the relevant assessment years. 2. Admissibility of Rs. 1 lakh payment to a tenant as a deduction in computing capital gains. 3. Determination of the full consideration for the transfer for capital gains computation. 4. Justification of the Tribunal in recalling part of its own order regarding the market value of the property. Summary: Issue 1: Assessment of Capital Gains The Tribunal upheld the view that capital gains should be assessed in each of the four years on the basis that only one-fourth of each assessee's interest in the property was transferred each year. It was concluded that "there could have been no transfer of any interest in the immovable property under the agreement dated March 1, 1972," and that the transfer occurred upon the execution and registration of the sale deeds in four different years. Hence, capital gains were to be assessed in the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. Issue 2: Deduction of Rs. 1 lakh Payment to Tenant The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 1 lakh to a tenant for vacating the premises was an admissible deduction in computing the capital gains. The Tribunal found that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh could not form part of the consideration for the sale and was allowable in the computation of the capital gains. The Tribunal stated, "the sum of Rs. 1 lakh could not be treated as consideration for the sale and was allowable in the computation of the capital gains." Issue 3: Determination of Full Consideration Initially, the Tribunal accepted a market value of Rs. 42,50,000 based on a concession made by the assessee's representative. However, upon discovering that this concession was based on a mistaken assumption, the Tribunal rectified its order and determined the value of the property for capital gains computation at Rs. 18 lakhs, aligning with the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded, "the true consideration for the transfer was not the market value which the property put up eventually could fetch but only the market value of the right, which the assessees got, to a conveyance of 30% of the carpet area as and when the structure came into existence." Issue 4: Justification of Tribunal's Recall of Order The Tribunal justified recalling part of its own order under section 254(2) of the Act, as the original order was based on a mistaken assumption regarding the finality of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at Chandigarh's decision. The Tribunal stated, "the Tribunal was justified in invoking its powers u/s 254(2) and in reconsidering the issue afresh." Conclusion: The applications for reference were dismissed on all four questions, with the court concluding that the Tribunal's decisions on these matters were correct and did not warrant further reference. The court noted that the questions were either questions of fact or had clear and self-evident answers, thus no reference was justified. The petitions were dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
|
