9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in not considering Rs. 50,00,000/- as part of cost of acquisition ignoring (a) the actual sale consideration as per the sale agreement, (b) actual payments and (c) assessment in the hands of seller. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in denying the capitalization of the interest on borrowed funds, ignoring that the amount borrowed actually funded the payment of purchase consideration as established in the bank statement. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal's finding as regards purchase consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2010. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 22.08.2011 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The revenue thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 08.08.2014 inter alia held that there is no corroborative material on record to demonstrate that the assessee has to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to M/s Blue Cross Builders and Investors Ltd. except bald assertion of the assessee that he has to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- to M/s Blue Cross Builders and Investors Ltd. and denied the claim of deduction of Rs. 11,82,50,000/- as part of cost of acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the assessee and Dr.Manjunath under which the amount was borrowed and assessee was required to pay interest on the aforesaid amount and even oral agreement is binding between the parties. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the tribunal are perverse. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on 'ASHISH PLASTIC INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT', 2015-TIOL-51-SC-IT, 'M.BASHEER AHAMED VS. CIT, (2013) 352 ITR 157 (MAD), 'CIT VS. GEORGE HENDERSON & CO. LTD', (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC), 'PR. CIT VS. QUARK MEDIA HOUSE INDIA (P.) LTD.', (2017 391 ITR 145 (P & H), and 'HIRA LAL RAM DAYAL VS. CIT', (1980) 122 ITR 461 (P & H). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the details of payments furnished by the assessee on 09.08.2010, which is mentioned in para 6 of the order of assessment, it is evident that there is no mention of amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, which is said to be payable to M/s Blue Cross Builders and Investors Ltd. It is also pertinent to mention here that M/s Blue Cross Builders and Investors Ltd. had furnished an explanation before completion of the assessment, in which it was stated that the deal was complete on 31.08.2007 and M/s Blue Cross Builders and Investors Ltd. is not concerned about any subsequent events. It has further been stated that further consideration, if any, in respect of the aforesaid property has been received by the assessee and the tax liability is also on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no mention that it has to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The tribunal has agreed with the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and has held that the Assessing Officer has rightly not granted the benefit of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the assessee towards cost of acquisition. It has further been held that there is no direct nexus between the loans advanced to the assessee by Dr.Manjunath and investment made by the assessee in the property in the same year and the money has been repaid to Dr.Y.S.Manjunath prior to sale of the property. The tribunal has therefore held that the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- cannot be included in the cost of acquisition. The findings recorded by the tribunal are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
