9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the capital gains ? The computation of the capital gains was for the assessment year 1962-63 (the accounting year ending 31st March, 1962). The assessee is the widow of J.B. Pinto who was a partner in five firms. The assessee filed a return, and thereafter a revised return, showing an income of Rs. 18,150 and a loss of Rs. 94,666 under capital gains. The revised return came to be filed consequent on it being pointed out by the Income-tax Officer that she had not shown any income in respect of capital gains arising on the release by her of her rights in the firms in which her husband was a partner to which she had become entitled on his death. J. B. Pinto died on 8th July, 1958. The total of the amounts standing to his credit in the accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding and detention of my property ". The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation in this behalf and also in regard to certain other items. He noticed that the release deed itself did not specify any amount being paid towards such expenses or damages and no such explanation had been given in the estate duty proceedings and at earlier stages in the proceedings and the assessee was taking inconsistent stands. It was urged before him that this amount was paid to her so as to dissuade her from going to court but he did not accept the plea as being unsupported from the circumstances in the case. He held that certain other adjustments sought to be made in arriving at a loss under capital gains were not tenable and the break-up given of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had been reimbursed it could not be deducted and the case of the assessee all along was that the amount was not part of the consideration for the release and there was no opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence in this behalf. It is argued that the assessee was not claiming a deduction under section 48(i) but the claim was that the amount should be excluded from the consideration for the release. We are unable to accept the submissions. The total consideration for the release, viz., Rs. 5,76,582, was not in dispute and what the assessee tried to do was to explain how this amount was made up and in that behalf gave a break-up of the amount and represented that Rs. 41,517 represented lawyer's fees, etc. The terms and contents of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence to support the contention that Rs. 41,517 represented expenses, the assessee's claim for deduction was rejected, which was justified. Even assuming that what the assessee represented was correct, the deduction was not permissible in terms of section 48(i). According to the assessee, Rs. 41,517 represented " Lawyer's fees and travelling expenses and damages for mental worry and suffering on account of wrongful withholding and detention of my property ". Section 48(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows : " 48. Mode of computation and deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Capital gains' shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
