2008 (1) TMI 391 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment sale deed and agreement regarding easmentary rights - The Assessing Officer considered the sale deed executed by the assessee in favour of M/s. McDowell and Co. Ltd. and referred to para 2 thereof which mentions that the right of way for the ingress and egress between the schedule property and the nearest road with all other privileges, easements, tights, incidental to the ownership and enjoyment of the schedule property has been provided. Thus, considering the different clauses of the sale deed, it was held that it is a composite sale deed of land, building and right of way held that - the appeal does not show or reflect any substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of long-term capital gain based on sale deed and separate agreement for right of way.
2. Interpretation of the sale deed and its clauses.
3. Consideration of separate agreement for granting right of way.
4. Tribunal's decision on the appeal challenging the computation of long-term capital gain.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee executed a sale deed for the sale of land and building to M/s. McDowell and Co. Ltd., along with a separate agreement granting the right of way to access the property. The Assessing Officer computed long-term capital gain based on both transactions, leading to a dispute regarding the total sale proceeds.

2. The sale deed mentioned the right of way for ingress and egress to the property, along with other privileges and easements. The Assessing Officer considered the sale deed as a composite document covering the sale of land, building, and the right of way. This interpretation influenced the computation of long-term capital gain, including the amount received for the right of way.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the case and concluded that since the sale deed already addressed the right of way for M/s. McDowell and Co. Ltd., there was no necessity for a separate agreement specifically for granting the right to use the road. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the separate agreement for the right of way lacked merit and substance, aligning with the Assessing Officer's interpretation of the transactions.

4. The High Court, after considering the arguments and findings of the lower authorities, upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. The Court deemed the appeal devoid of merit, leading to its dismissal. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision regarding the computation of long-term capital gain based on the sale deed and the separate agreement for the right of way.