Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (12) TMI 241 - AT - Income TaxDeduction claimed on indexed cost of acquisition - land and building - computation of capital gains - Addition u/s 69 made by the AO - unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts - Addition of proportionate share of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 52,25,000 instead of computing the income in accordance with the provisions of capital gains - Disallowance on addition made by the AO on bank deposits out of total deposits. Deduction claimed on indexed cost of acquisition - land and building - computation of capital gains - applicability of section 49 - family settlement available well before search and have been found in the seized material - legal ownership of this impugned asset was with the company i.e., M/s AGNMCPL - CIT decided the issue in favor of assessees - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that the impugned property was acquired by the four persons as per this family settlement and hence the judgment in the case of Minor Shanthi Chandran [1999 (4) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] becomes directly applicable. Thus, respectfully following the same. we hold that in the present case, s. 49(1) is applicable and accordingly deduction has to be allowed for indexed cost of acquisition by taking into account the fair market value of the property. Ld CIT(A) has directed the AO to allow deduction to the assessees on this account on the basis of valuation report of the DVO for the value of impugned property. In view of discussion, we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue and hence we uphold the same because we find that no ground is raised by the assessees in their cross-objections regarding this direction of ld CIT(A) that the report of the DVO should be adopted in place of report of registered valuer submitted by the assessees. This ground of the Revenue is rejected in the cases of these four assessees. Addition u/s 69 made by the AO - unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts - CIT deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- No specific defect could be pointed out by the ld DR of the Revenue in the finding of ld CIT(A) that each of the deposit is linked to the withdrawal made on the same day i.e. there is no time gap at all in each of these cases. In view of this, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and hence we uphold the same. This ground of the Revenue is rejected. Addition of proportionate share of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 52,25,000 instead of computing the income in accordance with the provisions of capital gains - HELD THAT:- It was agreed by both sides that if the appeal of the Revenue is decided in favour of the assessee, this ground in each of the four persons cross-objections will become infructuous. Since the appeals of the Revenue in all these four cases were dismissed by us, this ground of the assessees in all these four cross-objection have become infructuous and no separate adjudication is called for. Disallowance on addition made by the AO on bank deposits out of total deposits - HELD THAT:- We find that explanation of the assessee was found correct that against these five deposits on dt. 14th June, 1996, there were sufficient cash withdrawals from AWI and from SBI, but this addition has been confirmed by ld CIT(A) on the basis that there is time gap between the assessee's withdrawals from his own partnership M/s AWI or from his own bank. There is finding recorded by the ld AO or by ld CIT(A) that apart from depositing these cash into bank as explained by the assessee. there was any other user by the assessee of these amounts and in the absence of that, simply because there was a time gap, the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected and hence the addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is not correct. We, therefore, delete the same. This ground of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee in the case of Shri B.R. Charla is partly allowed whereas the remaining three cross-objections are dismissed. In the combined result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed along with three cross-objections and one cross-objection in the case of Shri B.R. Charla is partly allowed.
|