9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 709 - AT - Income TaxSale of tenancy right of a property - FMV adoption - Held that - As decided in Mina Deogun (2015 (5) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ). Since the assessee in the present case is held liable for long-term capital gains tax by treating the period for which the capital asset in question was held by the previous owner as the period for which the said asset was held by the assessee the indexed cost of acquisition has also to be determined on the very same basis. In the case of Raja Malwinder Singh (2011 (1) TMI 775 - PUNAJB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ) has held that even in a case where the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained section 55(3) of the Act statutorily prescribes the cost to be equal to the market value on the date of acquisition that this being the position capital gains are not excluded even on the plea that the value of the asset in respect of which capital gains are to be charged was incapable of being ascertained that the view based on the assumption that where the market value cannot be ascertained capital gains cannot be applied is not correct being against the statutory scheme that if the market value can be ascertained it has to be taken to be equal thereto and if the value cannot be ascertained it has to be equal to the market value on a specified date at the option of the assessee. Now coming back to the facts of the case we find that the FAA had adopted the fair market value as on 01. 04. 1981 for the property inherited by the assessee from his father which is correct - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the sale proceeds from the transfer of tenancy rights. 2. Determination of the cost of acquisition for the inherited tenancy rights. 3. Application of fair market value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 for computing capital gains. 4. Applicability of the provisions of sections 48, 49, and 55 of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of the Sale Proceeds from the Transfer of Tenancy Rights: The primary issue was whether the sale proceeds of ?1.83 crores from the transfer of tenancy rights were taxable. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the entire amount was taxable as Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) under sections 45, 49, and 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the sale proceeds were capital receipts and not taxable. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) partially agreed with the assessee, stating that the provisions of section 55(2) as amended from 01.04.1995 were applicable, and thus, the cost of acquisition could not be taken as nil. 2. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition for the Inherited Tenancy Rights: The AO determined that the cost of acquisition for the inherited tenancy rights should be taken as nil, as per section 55(2)(a). However, the FAA held that the cost of acquisition should be considered as per the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(a), which states that the cost of acquisition should be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it, increased by any cost of improvement incurred. The FAA adopted the FMV as on 01.04.1981 for this purpose. 3. Application of Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 for Computing Capital Gains: The FAA directed the AO to re-compute the indexed cost of acquisition using the FMV as on 01.04.1981, which was determined by a registered valuer. The FAA referred to the case of Vijay Rathore and held that the property in question was acquired by the assessee through inheritance from his father, who held it prior to 1981. Thus, the indexed FMV as on 01.04.1981 was to be considered for computing LTCG. 4. Applicability of the Provisions of Sections 48, 49, and 55 of the Income Tax Act: The judgment elaborates on the principles governing sections 48, 49, and 55 of the Act. Section 48 deals with the mode of computation of capital gains, while section 49 stipulates the cost of acquisition with reference to specified modes of acquisition. Section 55 provides the option to take the cost of acquisition as the FMV as on 01.04.1981. The judgment cites various precedents, including Mina Deogun and Raja Malwinder Singh, to support the application of these provisions. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision that the FMV as on 01.04.1981 should be used for computing the indexed cost of acquisition. The appeals filed by both the AO and the assessee were dismissed, confirming that the FAA's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The judgment emphasized the correct application of sections 48, 49, and 55 in determining the taxable capital gains from the sale of inherited tenancy rights.
|
