9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 23,000 paid by the assessee to the larger Hindu undivided family pertained to the additional interest in the property, i.e., interest in addition to the interest allottable to the assessee at the time of partial partition quantified at Rs. 44,000, the Tribunal was right in allowing the said amount of Rs. 23,000 as cost of acquisition to the assessee for the additional interest under section 48 – deduction available - - - - - Dated:- 11-10-2001 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., D. A. MEHTA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M. S. SHAH J. -In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 : "Whether, in law And on facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (Rs.) 1,42,000 Less : Cost prices Land value 1,855 Amount spent by HUF 42,354 ------ 44,209 Add : Amount payable to HUF as per release 23,000 deed Add : Amount paid to contractor 1,200 68,409 ------ -------- ------- 73,591 ------- The Income-tax Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal accepted the assessee's contentions and allowed the appeal holding that since the assessee had paid Rs. 23,000 for getting the additional interest in the property over and above the interest which the assessee got at the time of partial partition, that was the cost of acquisition to the assessee for the additional interest in the property. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. We have heard Mr. Akil Kureshi, learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr. B. D. Karia, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. Mr. Kureshi submitted that since the assessee got the land in question being sub-plot No. 2 with incomplete construction thereon at the time of partial partition and ultimately sold the said property without maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan. In the alternative, Mr. Kureshi submitted that even if the assessee's contentions were to be accepted that he had paid Rs. 23,000 for getting the additional interest in the property over and above his share which the assessee obtained at the time of partial partition, the Tribunal erred in not considering that the assessee was entitled to have only proportionate cost of acquisition in the hands of the larger Hindu undivided family as the cost of acquisition for that portion of the property which the assessee obtained at the time of partial partition. To explain the same, learned counsel submitted that when the larger Hindu undivided family offered to the assessee the property in question valued at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the cost of acquisition of the additional interest in the property over and above the interest which the assessee got by way of the assessee's share in the property of the larger Hindu undivided family at the time of partial partition. It is submitted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had held that the value of the property allotted to the assessee at the time of partial partition was Rs. 44,209. There never was any dispute about the said cost of acquisition in the hands of the larger Hindu undivided family. The only substantial dispute raised by the Income-tax Officer was about the amount of Rs. 23,000 which the assessee had admittedly paid for acquiring the additional interest in the property in question over and above the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Obviously, this additional interest was not obtained by the assessee as a part of his share in the property of the larger Hindu undivided family at the time of partial partition. The provisions of section 49(1)(i) are applicable to only that portion of the property which the assessee got as the assessee's share in the property of the larger Hindu undivided family and not in respect of the property or interest which was in excess of such share. As regards the alternative contention of Mr. Kureshi that if the assessee's contention is accepted, there could be modification in the cost of acquisition of the property in the hands of the larger Hindu undivided family as the entire amount of Rs. 44,209 cannot be taken as the cost of acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
