9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iz. 17.9.2013, duly announcing the adjourned date in the open court. On as many as four occasions earlier, hearing was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the assessee. This time, not even an adjournment petition was received. Hence, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter, and accordingly proceed to dispose of this appeal, ex-parte -qua the assessee- on the basis of material available on record. 3. At the outset, it may be noted that there was a delay of 5 days in the filing of this appeal by the assessee. A petition seeking condonation of delay was filed, explaining the delay as on account of misplacing of appeal papers by the assessee, who was residing at Singapur at the relevant point of time. Considering the reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been held on this aspect as follows- "5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. We are in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) since in order to determine the capital gains arising from the sale of any property received on succession, the cost of acquisition thereof has to be taken as the cost in the hands of the previous owner. Since the assessee has acquired the property on account of succession, the cost of acquisition would get restricted only to that in the hands of his ancestors, which excludes the cost of any encumbrance created by them. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. RM Merchant Hussien and Fancy Corporation Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a deduction in respect of the cost of any improvement, the expenditure should have been incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital asset that was originally acquired by the previous owner and if the previous owner had mortgaged the property and the assessee and his co-owners cleared off the mortgage so created, it could not be said that they incurred any expenditure by way of effecting any improvement to the capital asset that was originally purchased by the previous owner. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions of the High Court in Salay Mohamad Ibrahim Sait v. ITO [1994] 210 ITR 700 (Ker) and K.V. Idiculla v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 386." 6. Therefore, even if the assessee had discharged the liability by m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is that the preamble of the document, which states that the agreement has been entered into at a prior date and this by itself cannot be sufficient to conclude that the agreement has been honoured by the assessee and acted upon prior to the enactment of section 50C, Hence, the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the AO on this count is upheld dismissing the ground of appeal of the assessee." Since the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also in consonance with the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Farida Alladin (supra), we find no infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) on this aspect as well. We accordingly uphold the same, rejecting the ground of the assessee in this behalf. 8. In the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
