Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 93 - HC - Income TaxComputation of capital gain - computation of cost of acquisition - FMV determination - sanctity of SRO’s guideline value for the understanding/for the determination of the fair market value - Tribunal sustaining the average value adopted on the consideration of the SRO’s guideline value and the Chartered Engineer’s valuation report to quantify the cost of acquisition being the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 - HELD THAT:- Land of 3 acres in question, which was in the form of collateral security with SBI, has been settled by Mrs.Susila Ammal in favour of the Assessee and to clear off that debt, the sale of the land in question alongwith other parts of the land had to be undertaken in the settlement of dues to the SBI under the OTS Settlement. While there is no doubt that the said contribution of the Assessee to the extent of the land settled in his favour would be part of cost of acquisition or cost of improvement of the asset acquired by him as per Section 48 and Section 55 computation of the same deserves to be gone by the Tribunal, being a fact finding body, to find out whether the said sum vide the Table quoted above is correct amount or not and whether the advance of ₹ 4 Crores received from the Purchaser M/s.Martin Group on 19.8.2009 vide Demand Draft payable to ASREC (India) Limited is correct fact or not. High Court cannot be expected to do such a computing exercise under Section 260-A of the Act. Therefore, a remand of the case to the Tribunal is necessary, since these aspects of facts do not seem to have been properly placed before the Tribunal, as they are sought to be argued before us now with the documents placed on record of the High Court under the directions of the court. We are of the opinion that a miscarriage of justice may happen, if all these facts are ignored even at this stage. Assessee ought to have argued his case before the learned Tribunal on the relevant facts and evidence as otherwise, the finding of facts rendered by the learned Tribunal will be binding on the High Court while disposing the Appeals under Section 260-A - But, even on prima facie perusal of these facts before us, we are not inclined to ignore these facts which unfortunately, the Tribunal also could not take into account for either they were not placed before the learned Tribunal properly or even if they were placed before it, the learned Tribunal did not choose to go into all those details in a more detailed manner. To avoid any miscarriage of justice and to allow a fresh recomputation of "cost of acquisition" or cost of improvement properly under Section 48/49 and Section 55 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the present Appeal by setting aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to that extent. Regarding computation of Capital Gain in the hands of the Assessee and to compute the cost of acquisition properly in the light of the decision of R.M.Arunachalam, etc. v. CIT [1997 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] we remit the matter back to the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the Appeal of the Assessee on that ground once again. Questions with regard to Capital Gain Tax liability and computation of cost of acquisition are answered in the aforesaid manner and the computation part is remitted back to the learned Tribunal
|