Tribunal rules on capital gains for multiple properties, assesses gains in hands of assessee

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld CIT(A) regarding the cost inflation index for calculating long-term capital gain on Property No.1. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Ld CIT(A) on the long-term capital gain assessable on the sale of Property No.2, ruling that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of the assessee, not her father acting as her Power of Attorney holder. The Tribunal also held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s 54F for the property purchased by her father.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. The cost inflation index to be adopted for the purpose of computation of long-term capital gain.
2. Long-term capital gain assessable on the sale of property sold by the father of the assessee as Power of Attorney of the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cost Inflation Index for Computation of Long-Term Capital Gain:

The primary issue is the determination of the correct cost inflation index for calculating the long-term capital gain on Property No.1. The assessee adopted the cost inflation index of "125" applicable for the financial year 1984-85, arguing that she became the owner of Property No.1 by virtue of a settlement deed dated 09-07-1984. The assessing officer, however, adopted the cost inflation index of "223" applicable to the financial year 1992-93, asserting that the assessee could only be considered to have held the property from the date she became a major.

The assessee contended before the Ld CIT(A) that as per the provisions of sec. 49(1), the cost to the previous owner should be adopted if the property is received under a gift. Additionally, sec. 2(42A) includes the period of holding by the previous owner for determining the time period in the hands of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the assessee and directed the assessing officer to adopt the cost inflation index pertaining to the financial year 1981-82.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld CIT(A), referencing the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision in Arun Shungloo Trust Vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Manjula J Shah. The Tribunal concluded that the indexed cost of acquisition should be determined with reference to the cost inflation index for the first year in which the capital asset was held by the previous owner.

2. Long-Term Capital Gain on Sale of Property No.2:

The second issue concerns the long-term capital gain assessable on the sale of Property No.2, which was sold by the father of the assessee, Shri V.K.Mohan, as her Power of Attorney holder. The assessee contended that she never got possession of Property No.2 and that the sale proceeds were received and enjoyed by her father, who declared the capital gain in his return of income and claimed exemption u/s 54.

The assessing officer held that the assessee was the owner of Property No.2 and that her father acted only as her agent. Therefore, the capital gain arising from the sale was assessed in the hands of the assessee.

The Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,45,28,987/- on several grounds, including that the sale proceeds were received by Shri V.K.Mohan, who declared the capital gain in his return, and that the provisions of sec. 60 of the Act were applicable. The Ld CIT(A) also noted that the gift deed did not constitute a transfer as per sec. 47(iii) and that the assessee never accepted the gift.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal disagreed with the Ld CIT(A), stating that the transfer of Property No.2 by way of a settlement deed was absolute, and the assessee became the owner upon execution of the deed. The Tribunal held that Shri V.K.Mohan acted as the agent of the assessee when selling the property and that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee would not be entitled to exemption u/s 54F for the property purchased by her father.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld CIT(A) regarding the cost inflation index but set aside the Ld CIT(A)'s decision on the long-term capital gain on Property No.2, restoring the addition made by the assessing officer.

---