2014 (7) TMI 555 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of LTCG - Banakhat cancellation charges Cost of acquisition of land cost of improvement - Held that - The decision in Parshwanath Farm Versus ACIT, Cir. 7, Ahmedabad 2014 (7) TMI 367 - ITAT AHMEDABAD followed there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to pay any compensation as per the banakhat agreement, and it is not the assessee who has opted out from the banakhat agreement and it is the buyer on whose behest the banakhat cancellation agreement was executed - AO has rightly held that these payments of banakhat cancellation charges cannot be construed as payment made to retain the lands and in any case, it cannot be attributable to the cost of transfer of land, which has been added in the computation of capital gain in total acquisition cost. Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Banakhat Cancellation Charges as cost of acquisition of land.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2007-08. The Assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the construction business, had declared a total income of &8377; 1,60,22,490/-. The assessment under section 143(3) determined the total income at &8377; 2,61,59,749/-. The primary issue raised in the appeal was the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Banakhat Cancellation Charges as the cost of acquisition of land.

During the assessment proceedings, it was noted that the Assessee had claimed Banakhat Cancellation Charges as "cost of improvement" for calculating long-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim based on the precedent set in the previous assessment year, where it was established that the Assessee was not obligated to pay these charges. The CIT(A) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer, leading to the Assessee appealing to the ITAT.

The Assessee argued that in earlier years, a similar issue was brought before the ITAT, which resulted in the dismissal of the Assessee's appeal. The ITAT analyzed the banakhat agreement clauses and concluded that the Banakhat Cancellation Charges were not related to the cost of transfer of land. The ITAT further distinguished the case from previous judgments cited by the Assessee, emphasizing the absence of any obligation on the Assessee's part to pay compensation. Therefore, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal of the Assessee regarding the disallowance of Banakhat Cancellation Charges as the cost of acquisition of land. The judgment was pronounced on 13-06-2014 by Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.