9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees' appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that for the sale of old books, part of library inherited by them as family members on the death of Shri. Late Muthiah, who expired on 04.06.1992 and which books were sold by them to the University of Chicago, USA. 2.The learned CIT (A) was justified in taking the cost of acquisition of such books at the rate of 30% of the sale value because the Assessees had failed to prove the cost of acquisition of such books as on 01.04.1981, to provide the basis of indexation of costs as envisaged under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Authority has estimated 30% of the sale value, but the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue supported the impugned orders. 5.The findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are quoted below for ready reference: "4.The brief facts of the case are that each of the Assessees have inherited 1/3rd share in Raja Muthiah Library consisting of books, periodicals, News-papers, Clippings, Index Books and other allied materials, on the death of Mr.R.M.Raja Muthiah. These assets were sold to the University of Chikago, U.S.A. Each Assessee determined the capital gain after exercising option for fixing the cost of acquisition as on 01.4.1981 and indexng the same and applying the indexation method and ascertained the capital loss/gain and returned the income. According to the Assessing Officer, Shri Muthiah, till his death ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these assets were acquired before 01.4.81 and the cost as on 1.4.81 was subjected to indexation as per sec.48 of the Act. The lower authorities have not considered the same which is against the law. 7.On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has not considered the value adopted by the Assessee as on 01.4.81. Hence indexation of cost has not been done by the Assessing Officer. The reason for not considering the cost fixed by the Assessee as on 1.4.81 was that the Assessees have not produced any specific material to show the cost incurred by the Assessees on acquisition of these capital assets and value of these assets as on 01.4.81. The value fixed by the Assessees as on 01.4.81 is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1981, whichever is later." In the present case, the cost was determined by the Departmental authorities as on the date of sale and not as on 01.04.81. Hence, the question of indexation does not arise and the benefit provided under Sec.48 of the I.T. Act should be deemed to have been allowed. Regarding the estimation by the CIT (Appeals), the Revenue has no alternative other than estimating the cost of acquisition in the absence any material for that purpose made available before them. The basis on which the CIT (Appeals) has valued the assets is very reasonable and is not assailable as unrealistic or totally opposed to cosmetic enemies. Further, in our opinion, it is not correct to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
