Appellant denied claim on sale proceeds for capital gains calculation. Payments not deductible under Income Tax Act.

The court held that the appellant could not claim any part of the sale proceeds as the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains. The court concluded that there was no diversion of sale proceeds by overriding title, but rather an application of profits towards loan obligations. The appeal was dismissed, with the court ruling in favor of the Revenue, stating that the payments made did not qualify as allowable deductions under the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in not recognizing that no part of the consideration for the sale was received by the appellant and was directly paid to the bank by the purchaser, thus no capital gains arise in the hands of the appellant.
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in not holding that there was a diversion of the sale proceeds towards redeeming the interest of the mortgagor, and therefore, the amount so diverted was not liable to capital gains tax.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-receipt of Sale Consideration by the Appellant:
The appellant, along with two co-owners, had purchased land and later offered it as collateral for a loan. Due to default in repayment, the property was sold, and the entire sale consideration was paid directly to the bank by the purchaser. The appellant argued that since no part of the consideration was received by her, no capital gains should arise in her hands. The Assessing Officer, however, computed the total consideration of the land sold as income from capital gains, deducting only the cost of acquisition and improvement, and assessed the appellant's share accordingly.

2. Diversion of Sale Proceeds:
The appellant contended that the sale proceeds were diverted towards redeeming the interest of the mortgagor, thus not liable to capital gains tax. The Tribunal, however, held that the payment made to the bank was an application of income and not a diversion of income. They referenced Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, which specifies that capital gains should be computed by deducting only the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer and the cost of acquisition and improvement. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim, stating that the payment to the bank did not qualify as an allowable deduction under Section 48.

Analysis of Legal Precedents:
The appellant relied on several judgments to support her claim, such as CIT Vs. Thressiamma Abraham, CIT Vs. Attili N.Rao, and CIT Vs. Shakuntala Kantilal. However, the court distinguished these cases based on their facts. The court emphasized that in the present case, the mortgage was created by the appellant after acquiring the property, and the clearing of the mortgage debt by her did not entitle her to claim deduction under Section 48 of the Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in R.M.Arunachalam Vs. CIT, which held that such payments reduce the cost of acquisition only if the mortgage was created by the person from whom the assessee acquired the title.

Final Judgment:
The court concluded that there was no diversion of sale proceeds by virtue of overriding title, but rather an application of profits realized on the sale of land towards discharge of loan obligations. The court held that the appellant could not claim any part of such application as the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains. The court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal, answering the substantial questions of law against the appellant and in favor of the Revenue.

---