9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 241 - AT - Income TaxDeduction claimed on indexed cost of acquisition - land and building - computation of capital gains - Addition u/s 69 made by the AO - unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts - Addition of proportionate share of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 52,25,000 instead of computing the income in accordance with the provisions of capital gains - Disallowance on addition made by the AO on bank deposits out of total deposits. Deduction claimed on indexed cost of acquisition - land and building - computation of capital gains - applicability of section 49 - family settlement available well before search and have been found in the seized material - legal ownership of this impugned asset was with the company i.e., M/s AGNMCPL - CIT decided the issue in favor of assessees - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that the impugned property was acquired by the four persons as per this family settlement and hence the judgment in the case of Minor Shanthi Chandran 1999 (4) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT becomes directly applicable. Thus, respectfully following the same. we hold that in the present case, s. 49(1) is applicable and accordingly deduction has to be allowed for indexed cost of acquisition by taking into account the fair market value of the property. Ld CIT(A) has directed the AO to allow deduction to the assessees on this account on the basis of valuation report of the DVO for the value of impugned property. In view of discussion, we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue and hence we uphold the same because we find that no ground is raised by the assessees in their cross-objections regarding this direction of ld CIT(A) that the report of the DVO should be adopted in place of report of registered valuer submitted by the assessees. This ground of the Revenue is rejected in the cases of these four assessees. Addition u/s 69 made by the AO - unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts - CIT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - No specific defect could be pointed out by the ld DR of the Revenue in the finding of ld CIT(A) that each of the deposit is linked to the withdrawal made on the same day i.e. there is no time gap at all in each of these cases. In view of this, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and hence we uphold the same. This ground of the Revenue is rejected. Addition of proportionate share of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 52,25,000 instead of computing the income in accordance with the provisions of capital gains - HELD THAT - It was agreed by both sides that if the appeal of the Revenue is decided in favour of the assessee, this ground in each of the four persons cross-objections will become infructuous. Since the appeals of the Revenue in all these four cases were dismissed by us, this ground of the assessees in all these four cross-objection have become infructuous and no separate adjudication is called for. Disallowance on addition made by the AO on bank deposits out of total deposits - HELD THAT - We find that explanation of the assessee was found correct that against these five deposits on dt. 14th June, 1996, there were sufficient cash withdrawals from AWI and from SBI, but this addition has been confirmed by ld CIT(A) on the basis that there is time gap between the assessee's withdrawals from his own partnership M/s AWI or from his own bank. There is finding recorded by the ld AO or by ld CIT(A) that apart from depositing these cash into bank as explained by the assessee. there was any other user by the assessee of these amounts and in the absence of that, simply because there was a time gap, the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected and hence the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is not correct. We, therefore, delete the same. This ground of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee in the case of Shri B.R. Charla is partly allowed whereas the remaining three cross-objections are dismissed. In the combined result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed along with three cross-objections and one cross-objection in the case of Shri B.R. Charla is partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 52,25,000 by CIT(A) and direction to AO to use Government valuer's value. 2. Addition of Rs. 8,08,000 and Rs. 42.45 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. 3. Cross-objections by assessees regarding the addition of sale consideration and bank deposits. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 52,25,000 by CIT(A) and Direction to AO to Use Government Valuer's Value: The primary issue in these appeals was whether the cost of acquisition for the property at C-101, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, should be considered as nil or as per the Government valuer's report. The AO had assessed the entire sale consideration as undisclosed income, arguing that there was no cost of acquisition for the assessees. However, the CIT(A) held that the property had a cost of acquisition, directing the AO to get the property valued by the DVO. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the family settlement was analogous to a partition and thus, Section 49(1) was applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's acceptance of the family settlement for assessing the sale proceeds in the hands of the individuals implied that the cost of acquisition should also be considered. The Tribunal concluded that the indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed based on the DVO's valuation as of 1st April 1981. 2. Addition of Rs. 8,08,000 and Rs. 42.45 Lakhs as Unexplained Cash Deposits in Bank Accounts: In the case of Shri B.R. Charla, the AO had added Rs. 23,39,200 as unexplained cash deposits, which was partly deleted by CIT(A), retaining only Rs. 2.58 lakhs. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the deposits were verified and found to be from the assessee's partnership firm, M/s Ambitious Writing Instruments (AWI), and other verified sources. For Shri Atul Charla, the AO had added Rs. 42.45 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits, which CIT(A) deleted entirely, observing that each deposit was linked to a same-day withdrawal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the deletion of the addition. 3. Cross-objections by Assessees Regarding the Addition of Sale Consideration and Bank Deposits: The cross-objections raised by the assessees became infructuous following the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. However, in the case of Shri B.R. Charla, the assessee contested the addition of Rs. 2.58 lakhs out of the total deposits. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the deposits were from cash withdrawals from AWI and SBI, Mayapuri, and noted that there was no evidence of other uses of these amounts. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2.58 lakhs, allowing this ground of the cross-objection. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals of the Revenue, upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the cost of acquisition and unexplained cash deposits, and partly allowed the cross-objection of Shri B.R. Charla by deleting the addition of Rs. 2.58 lakhs. The other three cross-objections were dismissed as they became infructuous.
|
