9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (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. th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n., 2007in the remaining three cases i.e., Shri Atul Charla, Smt. Shashi Charla and Smt. Jyoti Charla. Since one of the issues involved is common in all the four cases, all these appeals and cross-objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Ground No. 1 of the appeal in the case of Baldev Raj Charla in IT(SS) No. 93/Del/2007 reads as under: "On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,25,000 and directing the AO to take the value of acquisition of the property No. C-101, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II,New Delhi, as decided by the Government valuer instead of nil as taken by the AO." 3. Only one similar ground is raised by the Revenue in the case of Smt. Shashi Charla and Smt. Jyoti Charla and ground No. 1 in the case of Shri Atul Charla is also identical. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that there was a search carried out by the Department on24th Sept., 2002in M/s Stic-Charla Group at various premises. It is noted by the AO that pp. 4, 5 and 6 of Annex. A-1, seized from the residential premises of Shri B.R. Charla and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all these assessees carried this matter in appeal before learned CIT(A). Regarding this aspect of the matter that whether there is any cost of acquisition or not, learned CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessees but it was held by him that value of property as on 1st April, 1981 as per the report of the registered valuer. Shri A.P. Saxena, cannot be accepted. An order has been passed by learned CIT(A) under s. 250(4) as per which the AO has been directed to get this property valued through DVO. Learned CIT(A) directed the AO vide these impugned orders that the AO should work out incidence of capital gains by taking that value of property which is reported to him by the DVO. It is also held by him that the capital gains thus worked out will be the income of these four assessees i.e. Shri B.R. Charla, Shri Atul Charla, Smt. Shashi Charla and Smt. Jyoti Charla. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue supported the assessment order on this issue. It was also submitted by him that cost of acquisition has rightly been adopted by the AO at Rs. nil because s. 49(1) has no application in the present case. An alternate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs and cost of land 2,926 sq. yds. valued at Rs. 24.90 lakhs. An alternate contention was raised that as per judgment of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 138 : (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC), capital gain is not liable to tax where the cost of acquisition is nil and since as per the AO, there was no cost of acquisition of the assessees, no capital gain tax is assessable in the hands of these four assessees. In support of the same contention, reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 166 CTR (Bom) 7 : (2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom). He strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgments cited by learned Authorised Representative of the assessees. We find that the dispute before us in the present cases is limited i.e. whether any deduction is allowable to the assessees towards indexed cost of acquisition while computing long-term capital gains. We find that no income on this account was declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l pen division of M/s AGNMCPL, equipment of tool rooms, stocks of nib division and ball pen division of the same company, power connection in the name of M/s AGNMCPL and also in the name of M/s Pioneer Stationery Mart. The liabilities of this company along with the brand name logo were also distributed assets and liabilities of other concerns such as Ambitious Export, Ambitious Enterprises, Pioneer Stationery Mart, Metal Corporation, etc. were also partitioned as per this family settlement. It is a matter of record. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed by the company M/s AGNMCPL and still the sale consideration was received by these four assessees. The assessees have also declared income on this account in their hands and the same has been accepted by the AO except rejecting the claim of the assessees regarding deduction of indexed cost of acquisition. But for the family settlement, the sale proceeds of the impugned land standing in the name of the company M/s AGNMCPL cannot be taxable in the hands of these four individuals. The right over these properties has been acquired by these individuals only in terms of this family settlement. On the one hand, the Department is accepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four assessees on sale of this property and distributed equally among these four persons belonging to B.R. Charla Group on the basis of family settlement dt.1st Sept., 1997effective from31st July, 1992has been accepted by the AO also because this total amount of Rs. 209 lakhs has been assessed equally in the hands of these four persons, who are belonging to B.R. Charla Group. Otherwise also, this amount can be assessed in the hands of these four assessees in the light of this family settlement only because otherwise the sale consideration of this property is assessable in the hands of the company i.e., M/s AGNMCPL who is the legal owner of this property. The AO has also proceeded to assess this receipt in question of Rs. 209 lakhs in the hands of these four individuals and this goes to show that this position has been accepted by both sides that as per this family settlement dt.1st Sept., 1997effective from31st July, 1992, these four persons have acquired ownership of this portion of the impugned property. Once this position is accepted, we feel that the issue in the present case is covered in favour of the assessee by this judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal of the Revenue in the cases of Smt. Jyoti Charla and Smt. Shashi Charla. 12. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue in the case of B.R. Charla in IT(SS)A No. 93/Del/2007 reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,08,000 out of total addition of Rs. 23,39,200 made by the AO of account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts." 13. Similar ground is raised in the case of Shri Atul Charla in IT(SS)A No. 95/Del/2007 except the difference in the amount which is Rs. 42.45 lakhs instead of Rs. 8.08 lakhs in the case of Shri B.R. Charla. For the sake of convenience, this issue in both these cases is decided as per below. 14. Learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee supported the orders of the authorities below. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that in the case of Shri B.R. Charla, an addition of Rs. 23,39,200 was made by the AO as unexplained cash deposit in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time gap at all in each of these cases. In view of this, we find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and hence we uphold the same. This ground of the Revenue is rejected in both these cases. 18. In the result, all these four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 19. Now, we take up the cross-objections filed by the assessees. Ground No. 1 of the cross-objection in the case of B.R. Charla in C.O. No. 240 jDel/2007 reads as under: "Whether the learned AO has erred in law and circumstances of the case in making the 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." 20. Similar ground is raised by the remaining three assessees in their respective cross-objections. 21. 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 adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
