9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was assessable on the sale of a part of the property ? (2) Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that section 51 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?" In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal which are not in dispute also. On October 18, 1983, the assessee purchased immovable property bearing No. 8, Bore Bank Road, Benson Town, Bangalore City, measuring an extent of 43,700 sq.ft. in a court auction for a sum of Rs. 3,14,835. Some time thereafter, from out of the aforesaid property, the assessee sold an extent of 75' x 50' or 3,750 sq.ft. for a sum of Rs. 35,875. For the assessment year 1974-75, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. In support of his contention, Sri Prasad has strongly relied on a Division Bench ruling of his court in CIT v. Smt. P. Mahalakshmi [1982] 134 ITR 428. Sri Sarangan, has urged that the construction suggested by Sri Prasad that does violence to the provisions would result in evasion of taxes under the Act. In computing the capital gains, the Income-tax Officer took the average cost of purchase of the property at Rs. 7.20 per sq.ft. and the sale price at Rs. 10.25 per sq. ft. and determined the capital gains thereon at Rs. 10,675 which was also contested before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who on a detailed examination negatived that and other contentions. Before the Tribunal, the assessee did not take exception to the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a capital asset" occurring in section 45 of the Act cannot be interpreted as transfer of the entire capital asset and not a part of the same. The words "a capital asset" may mean the whole of that capital asset when so transferred or part of that capital asset also. If the construction suggested for the assessee is accepted, then it is open to him to so arrange his affairs as to avoid capital gains for all time to come. On the rules of construction of statutes re-stated in Arunachalam's case [1985] 151 ITR 172 (Kar) [FB] we cannot countenance such a construction at all. No other provision in the Act helps the assessee to take a different view in the matter. In Mahalakshmi's case [1982] 134 ITR 428 (Kar) on which reliance was placed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
