Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 480 - AT - Income TaxDetermination of fair market value as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of granting deduction while computing capital gains - indexation - reference to DVO - Held that:- Property had been inherited by the assessee from grandmother who had acquired it before 1981. We hold that the indexation cost has to be given from the date from when the asset was held by the previous owner from whom it was inherited. We cannot brush aside the fact that the Learned AO had not referred the case to DVO for determination of fair market value as on 1.4.1981 on his own volition. Instead it was done based on the directions of this tribunal in the first round of appellate proceedings. In-fact, it is also seen that the assessee himself had raised this issue as an additional ground before this tribunal with a prayer to refer the case to DVO. While this is so, the assessee cannot have any grievance of the fact of Learned AO referring to DVO for determination of fair market value as on 1.4.1981. If the assessee has got any objections to the value determined by DVO, he is at liberty to file the same. But he chose not to file any objections for the same inspite of several opportunities provided to him by the Learned AO which is elaborated in the assessment order. Moreover, the assessee ought to have carried the matter further to the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the order of this tribunal in the first round of appellate proceedings in case if he had any grievance. We find that the assessee was not able to produce any evidence in this regard before us. We find that the determination of fair market value as on the date of sale i/e 25.5.2004 by DVO after giving reduction of 15% towards various encumbrances attached to the property , cannot be faulted with. In these facts and circumstances, it is only just and proper to hold that the reference made by the Learned AO to DVO at the instance of the order of this tribunal cannot be faulted with. Interest u/s 234A and 234B - whether CIT(A) was wrong in not considering the fact that the AO has made provisional attachment u/s.281B of the I.T Act on 17.01.2009 whereas he has charged interest u/s. 234A & 234B upto the date of assessment order which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal? - Held that:- . We find lot of force in the arguments of the Learned AR on the aspect of adjustment of monies available in post office towards payment of taxes with corresponding impact on interest calculations. We hold that the monies lying in post office deposits which were the subject matter of attachment u/s 281B of the Act should be construed as taxes paid by the assessee and accordingly interest u/s 234A and 234 B of the Act has to be reworked accordingly.
|