9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r it is Rs. 22 lakhs ultimately paid by the assessees or Rs. 5 lakhs initially paid by the assessees. According to us, the cost of the property is Rs. 22 lakhs and not Rs. 5 lakhs. As already stated, every property has got its own intrinsic/market value irrespective of the mode of payment negotiated between the concerned parties. A house property worth Rs. 23 lakhs might be sold for Rs. 21 lakhs against a lump sum payment or it might be sold for Rs. 23 lakhs against instalment payments. Therefore, the maximum variation in the cost of the property depending upon the method of payment is only Rs. 2 lakhs i.e., the difference between Rs. 23 lakhs and Rs. 21 lakhs. If the first instalment paid in that case was Rs. 5 lakhs, it could never be hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gains taxable in the hands of the assessees accordingly. In result, these two appeals are allowed. - DR. O.K. NARAYANAN AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JJ. Sanjay R. Parikh for the Appellant. D.Z. Patel for the Respondent. ORDER Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Accountant Member - These two appeals are filed by the assessees for the assessment year 1998-99. These appeals are filed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XIII at Mumbai passed on 19-12-2001 and arises out of the assessments completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessees are brothers and the facts and circumstances of the cases are one and the same and, therefore, these appeals are disposed of through this common order. 3. The assessees herein had sold their houses situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer has determined a capital gain of Rs. 14,18,382 and Rs. 14,13,904 respectively. This position was accepted by the CIT(A) in first appeal, therefore, these appeals before us. 5. We heard Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the assessees and Shri D.Z. Patel, the learned departmental representative appearing for the revenue. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee has relied on the decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad A-Bench in the case of ITO v. Smt. Kashmiraben M. Parikh [1992] 44 TTJ 68 wherein the Tribunal has considered an analogous issue. In that case, the agreement for the purchase of property was executed in 1979 by paying a token amount and the property was handed over after construction in 1981. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al cost of acquisition at the total payments made by them. Therefore, the real question is what is the cost of acquisition for the purpose of section 48; whether the amount of first instalment paid by the assessees or the total amounts paid by the assessees for acquiring the properties. 8. A house property has got its own intrinsic/market value. The assessee might have ultimately purchased a property worth Rs. 22 lakhs. The first instalment paid by the assessee might have been Rs. 5 lakhs. The question is what is the original cost of acquisition of the houses whether it is Rs. 22 lakhs ultimately paid by the assessees or Rs. 5 lakhs initially paid by the assessees. According to us, the cost of the property is Rs. 22 lakhs and not Rs. 5 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
