TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abhishek Maratha for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by BADAR DURREZ AHMED J. - The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on February 23, 2007, in respect of the assessment year 1998-99. The learned counsel for the appellant proposed several questions but essentially two issues were canvassed before this court. The first issue was with regard to the Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs. 34,72,000 on account of capital gains made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the Valuation Officers' reports. The second issue was with regard to the Tribunal deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,74,55,243 made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer was right in adding Rs. 34,72,000 to the income of the assessee by way of capital gains based on the valuations arrived at by the Valuation Officers. She submitted that the Tribunal had gone wrong in law in deleting the said addition. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal had overlooked the provisions of section 55A of the said Act, which specifically provide for determination of the fair market value. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in similar circumstances, this court in the case of CIT v. Amar Nath Narang : I. T. A. No. 931/2005 has admitted the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer was right in referring the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration, the amount of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer as also the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto have to be deducted. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer or with regard to the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement. The entire dispute centres upon the expression "full value of consideration". According to the Revenue, the full value of consideration refers to the full market value. However, according to the assessee the expression "full value of consideration" cannot have any reference to the fair market value. 6. This controversy has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B of the 1922 Act again observed that in the case of a sale price of an asset, there would be no question of any market value, unlike in the case of an exchange and the Supreme Court also observed that, in the case of a sale, all that one had to see was—What was the consideration bargained for? 8. These decisions make it more than clear that the expression "full value of consideration" that is used in section 48 of the present Act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deeds as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred. 9. With regard to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant based on the provision of section 55A of the said Act, it is imme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termined, it is obvious that section 55A of the Act would get triggered and a reference to the Valuation Officer would be necessary. 10. Another instance where the fair market value would have to be determined is provided in section 45 (1A) of the Act. Under this provision, where the assessee receives an amount from the insurer on account of damage or destruction to any capital asset as a result of natural calamities such as floods or fires, explosions, etc., the question of determining the capital gains is also connected with the determination of the fair market value of the asset on the date of receipt of such amounts from the insurer. In section 45 (1A) of the said Act also, it is indicated that for the purposes of section 48 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case at all and, therefore, the framing of the question in Amar Nath Narang's case (supra) does not, in any way, advance the case of the appellant for the purposes of this appeal. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the decision arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law, as proposed or otherwise, arises for the consideration of this court. 14. As regards the second issue pertaining to bad debts, we find that section 36(1) (vii) of the said Act clearly stipulates that the said deduction is allowed provided the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the concerned previous year. This is, however, subject to the provision of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Act. Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
