Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Shah Damji Champsi & Co, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 February, 2014

                                     ुं ई यायपीठ "एच" मब
                आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब                 ुं ई
      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI

         BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND B.R.BHASKARAN (AM)
     सव ी बी.आर. म तल, या यक सद य एवं बी.आर. भा करन, लेखा सद य के सम

                    आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2011
                    ( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

   Income Tax Officer,                बनाम/     M/s Shah Damji Champsi and Co.,
   13(3)(1),                           Vs.      227,Narshi Natha Street,
   Room No.428, 4th Floor,                      Mumbai-400009.
   Aayakar Bhavan,
   Mumbai-400020
        (अपीलाथ /Appellant)            ..       (    यथ / Respondent)

    थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AACFS9222Q

         अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by        :       Shri Pitambar Das
            यथ क ओर से/Respondent by :              Shri Dhirendra M Shah


         सन
          ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing              : 20.2.2014
         घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.2.2014

                                    आदे श / O R D E R

Per B.R.Mittal, JM:

The Department has filed this appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 24.11.2010 for assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:

"1. i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in holding that the AO has not carried out the directions as contained in the appellate order dated 16.7.2009 in appeal No.CIT(A)- XIII/13(3)(1)/122/2008-09,
ii) While doing so, the ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in the said appellate order. The ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to adopt 1986 as base year and treat the subsequent payments/expense as cost of improvement of the asset and work out the indexed cost of acquisition and accordingly calculated the capital gains. The AO has calculated the capital gains in the order u/s 250 dated 10.9.2009 as per the directions contained in the order dated 16.7.2009 as under :
Working of Long Term Capital Gains:
              Sale consideration                                        Rs.40,25,000/-
              Less : brokerage                                           Rs.1,60,000/-
                                                          A             Rs.38,65,000
                                                                     I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2011
                                             2


                Working of indexed cost of acquisition :

                Payment made during FY 1986-87 = Rs.20,000 x 497 =       Rs.71,000
                                                             172

Payment made during FY 1989-90 = Rs.1,80,000 x 497 = Rs.5,20,116 172 Payment made during FY 1991-92 = Rs.53,332 x 497 = Rs.1,33,196 199 Payment made during FY 1998-99 = Rs.6,786 x 497 = Rs.9,609 351 Payment made during FY 2001-02 = Rs.30,000 x 497 = Rs.35,000 426 Payment made during FY 2004-05 = Rs.4,28,304 x 497 = Rs.4,43,473 480
--------------
        Total Indexed cost (B)                                    = Rs.12,12,394
       Long term capital gain (A-B)                                 Rs.26,52,606

iii) the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to include payments made after 1986 to be included in the cost of base year 1986."

2. We have heard the ld. Representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of authorities below.

3. The relevant facts are that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.13,14,602/- on sale of Bangalow plot. The AO while verifying the details of working of capital gains observed that the assessee claimed brokerage of Rs.1,60,000/- and no TDS was deducted. Therefore, he disallowed the said claim u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was further observed by the AO that the assessee has taken purchase value of the plot at Rs.7,18,422/- in the financial year 1986-87 and claimed indexed cost accordingly. AO stated that CIDCO letter dated 5.3.1991 has shown that the purchase cost is Rs.2,46,832/- of the agreement so executed in the financial year 1991-92. The assessee stated that the said cost of Rs.7,18,422/- also includes maintenance charges and accordingly calculated LTCG by considering the base finance year 1991-92 and worked out the capital gain at Rs.34,08,540/-. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

4. The ld. CIT(A) by his order dated 16.7.2009 after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the AO to adopt base year in respect of the said plot as 1986 to work out the capital gains. Accordingly, AO passed the order giving effect to the order I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2011 3 of ld. CIT(A) to consider the respective years of payment made by assessee for working out the indexed cost of purchase value. It is relevant to state that the assessee paid to CIDCO for purchase of plot as under :

     Date     of Amount in Rs.     Description
     payment
     12.8.1986             20,000 Registration charges for lease of bungalow
     28.4.1989           1,00,000 Deposit buyers contribution
     17.11.1989            80,000 Deposit buyers contribution
     4.4.1991              46,832 Deposit buyers contribution
     26.2.1992              6,500 Deposit buyers contribution
     16.5.1998              6,500 Deposit buyers contribution
     16.5.1998                 286 others
     7.3.2002              30,000 -
     19.3.2005             45,434 -
     31.3.2005           3,82,870 Paid to Shivam Enterprise for fencing work,
                                   cleaning and leveling of land
                         7,18,422



However,   the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.    CIT(A) by an

impugned order dated 24.11.2010 directed the AO to take base year 1986 for the entire amount. Hence, Department is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR could not dispute the validity of the calculation made by AO to compute capital gain, the details of which are mentioned by department in the grounds of appeal itself (supra). Therefore, he conceded that the order of AO does not contain any infirmity and the same should be confirmed. In view of above, we reverse the order of ld. CIT(A) and confirm the action of AO to work out LTCG by allowing the ground of appeal taken by department.

6. In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed.

The above order was pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2014.

घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांकः 26th February, 2014 को क गई ।

      Sd                                                    sd

(बी.आर. भा करन, लेखा सद य/ B.R. BASKARAN)                  (बी.आर. म तल/B.R.MITTAL)
लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                          या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
मब

ंु ई Mumbai: on this 26th day of Febrary,2014 I.T.A. No.1189/Mum/2011 4 व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ंु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, True copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai