Manohersinhji P. Jadeja vs Income-Tax Officer on 6 November, 1986
Asst. Year 2008-09
"I have carefully perused the assessment order and the
submissions given by the appellant. The claim of the appellant
is that the case jails under explanation to section 49(1). The
property is an inherited joint family property acquired long back
by the forefathers for which the cost and date of acquisition
cannot be ascertained. The appellant has also relied on the
case of Mandharsinhji P. Jadeja vs. CIT [281 ITR 19,
Gujarat].The claim of the appellant is on a wrong belief. In the
case of Mandharsinh P. Jadeja, the facts show that the property
was acquired by him by way of conquest and, therefore, the
cost of acquisition in that case was NIL and accordingly the
capital gain could not be applied to the consideration received
on account of sale. In contrast to this, the appellant's property
is an inherited property which was acquired by the forefathers
of the appellant long time back and the appellant had not made
any effort to find out the cost of acquisition to the previous
owner who has acquired the property by any mode other than
the will or inheritance. The appellant is trying to take refuge in
the provisions or section 49(1) which is apparently misplaced.
The appellant has not been able to give any documentary
evidence or reliable proof tc show that the cost of acquisition of
the land to his forefathers was NIL. The cost of acquisition is
not MIL but it is not available with the appellant and, therefore,
it cannot be taken M that the cost of acquisition is NIL.
Accordingly, the claim of the appellant regarding explanation to
Section 49(1) is, not accepted.