Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 386 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the office as a short-term or long-term capital asset.
2. Disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition.
3. Levy of interest under Section 234.
4. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Office as Short-term or Long-term Capital Asset:
The primary issue was whether the office sold by the assessee should be treated as a short-term or long-term capital asset. The assessee claimed it as a long-term capital asset, arguing that the right to the property was acquired in 1992 based on a letter of allotment. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the property was acquired after 1987, as the plot was allotted to the builder in 1986, and the property could not have been constructed before that. The CIT(A) observed that the allotment letter dated 26th July 1992 did not confer ownership rights but only a "right of specific performance" or "right to obtain conveyance of immovable property." Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that the property was a short-term capital asset as the ownership right was not acquired until a later date, which was not clearly established by the assessee.

2. Disallowance of Indexed Cost of Acquisition:
The AO disallowed the indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee, as there was no verifiable evidence of the actual date of purchase. The assessee argued that the property was booked in 1992, but the AO found that the property was likely acquired after 1994 based on correspondence with the builder. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the capital asset came to be held by the assessee only upon acquiring ownership rights, which was not clearly proven to be in 1986. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the terms of the allotment letter dated 1st August 1994 to determine the actual date of acquisition and compute the indexed cost accordingly.

3. Levy of Interest under Section 234:
The AO levied interest under Section 234, which was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal's order did not specifically address this issue, as the primary focus was on the classification of the asset and the indexed cost of acquisition.

4. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's order did not specifically address this issue, as the primary focus was on the classification of the asset and the indexed cost of acquisition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for re-determination, directing the AO to examine the terms of the allotment letter dated 1st August 1994 to ascertain the actual date of acquisition. The AO was instructed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit necessary evidence and explanations. The AO was also directed to compute the indexed cost based on the actual payments made by the assessee over time, rather than the total cost from the date of allotment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates