TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II,New Delhi, as decided by the Government valuer instead of nil as taken by the AO." 3. Only one similar ground is raised by the Revenue in the case of Smt. Shashi Charla and Smt. Jyoti Charla and ground No. 1 in the case of Shri Atul Charla is also identical. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that there was a search carried out by the Department on24th Sept., 2002in M/s Stic-Charla Group at various premises. It is noted by the AO that pp. 4, 5 and 6 of Annex. A-1, seized from the residential premises of Shri B.R. Charla and others located at 45/201, Heritage City (Unitech), Gurgaon, gives the details regarding transaction with respect to property No. C-101, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II,New Delhi. It is noted by the AO that as per these documents, half portion of the building at C-101, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, measuring plot area about 1,400 sq. yds. was sold in three parts of about 470 sq. yds. for a total consideration of Rs. 249 lakhs as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell and purchase dt.24th Feb., 1999. The AO has further noted regarding various receipts of money on account of these transactions as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking that value of property which is reported to him by the DVO. It is also held by him that the capital gains thus worked out will be the income of these four assessees i.e. Shri B.R. Charla, Shri Atul Charla, Smt. Shashi Charla and Smt. Jyoti Charla. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue supported the assessment order on this issue. It was also submitted by him that cost of acquisition has rightly been adopted by the AO at Rs. nil because s. 49(1) has no application in the present case. An alternate contention was raised by him that it has to be seen as to whether any depreciation was claimed and allowed to the company, i.e., M/s AGNMCPL and, if so, the income on the sale of this property has to be assessed as short-term capital gain as per the provisions of s. 50(2) of the Act. 6. As against this, learned Authorised Representative of the assessee supported the orders of learned CIT(A). It was submitted by him that property in question was acquired by the company i.e., M/s AGNMCPL from DDA as per perpetual lease dt.17th Oct., 1966. It was submitted by him that copy of perpetual lease deed is appearing on pp. 39 to 46 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CTR (Bom) 7 : (2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom). He strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgments cited by learned Authorised Representative of the assessees. We find that the dispute before us in the present cases is limited i.e. whether any deduction is allowable to the assessees towards indexed cost of acquisition while computing long-term capital gains. We find that no income on this account was declared by these four assessees in the regular return of income but in the block return, these assessees have declared long-term capital gains on this account to the extent of Rs. 3,49,547 in each case i.e. Rs. 13,98,187 in these four cases. The same has been worked out as under: "Details of long-term capital gain Property C-101, Mayapuri, New Delhi. Particulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily settlement deed is available on pp. 25 to 36 of the paper book and in the same, in addition to the impugned land at C-101, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, various other assets and liabilities belonging to the family were also settled such as machines, tools and dyes used by nib division and ball pen division of M/s AGNMCPL, equipment of tool rooms, stocks of nib division and ball pen division of the same company, power connection in the name of M/s AGNMCPL and also in the name of M/s Pioneer Stationery Mart. The liabilities of this company along with the brand name logo were also distributed assets and liabilities of other concerns such as Ambitious Export, Ambitious Enterprises, Pioneer Stationery Mart, Metal Corporation, etc. were also partitioned as per this family settlement. It is a matter of record. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed by the company M/s AGNMCPL and still the sale consideration was received by these four assessees. The assessees have also declared income on this account in their hands and the same has been accepted by the AO except rejecting the claim of the assessees regarding deduction of indexed cost of acquisition. But for the family....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned asset is received by these assessees on distribution of assets on total or partial partition of a HUF. In the present case, legal ownership of this impugned asset was with the company i.e., M/s AGNMCPL. The claim of the assessees that the amount in question i.e., Rs. 209 lakhs was received by these four assessees on sale of this property and distributed equally among these four persons belonging to B.R. Charla Group on the basis of family settlement dt.1st Sept., 1997effective from31st July, 1992has been accepted by the AO also because this total amount of Rs. 209 lakhs has been assessed equally in the hands of these four persons, who are belonging to B.R. Charla Group. Otherwise also, this amount can be assessed in the hands of these four assessees in the light of this family settlement only because otherwise the sale consideration of this property is assessable in the hands of the company i.e., M/s AGNMCPL who is the legal owner of this property. The AO has also proceeded to assess this receipt in question of Rs. 209 lakhs in the hands of these four individuals and this goes to show that this position has been accepted by both sides that as per this family settlement dt.1s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees in their cross-objections regarding this direction of learned 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. 11. There is no other ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue in the cases of Smt. Jyoti Charla and Smt. Shashi Charla. 12. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue in the case of B.R. Charla in IT(SS)A No. 93/Del/2007 reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,08,000 out of total addition of Rs. 23,39,200 made by the AO of account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts." 13. Similar ground is raised in the case of Shri Atul Charla in IT(SS)A No. 95/Del/2007 except the difference in the amount which is Rs. 42.45 lakhs instead of Rs. 8.08 lakhs in the case of Shri B.R. Charla. For the sake of convenience, this issue in both these cases is decided as per below. 14. Learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee supported the orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,000 in this case stands explained and the same is hereby deleted." 17. No specific defect could be pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue in the finding of learned 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 learned CIT(A) on this issue and hence we uphold the same. This ground of the Revenue is rejected in both these cases. 18. In the result, all these four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 19. Now, we take up the cross-objections filed by the assessees. Ground No. 1 of the cross-objection in the case of B.R. Charla in C.O. No. 240 jDel/2007 reads as under: "Whether the learned AO has erred in law and circumstances of the case in making the 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." 20. Similar ground is raised by the remaining three assessees in their respective cross-objections. 21. It was agreed by both sides that if the appeal of the Revenue is decided in fav....