2014 (1) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see to that date on the penultimate date, viz. 17.9.2013, duly announcing the adjourned date in the open court. On as many as four occasions earlier, hearing was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the assessee. This time, not even an adjournment petition was received. Hence, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter, and accordingly proceed to dispose of this appeal, ex-parte -qua the assessee- on the basis of material available on record. 3. At the outset, it may be noted that there was a delay of 5 days in the filing of this appeal by the assessee. A petition seeking condonation of delay was filed, explaining the delay as on account of misplacing of appeal papers by the assessee, who was residing at Singapur at the rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f us, viz. the author Judicial Member is a party, it has been held on this aspect as follows- "5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the orders of the authorities below. We are in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) since in order to determine the capital gains arising from the sale of any property received on succession, the cost of acquisition thereof has to be taken as the cost in the hands of the previous owner. Since the assessee has acquired the property on account of succession, the cost of acquisition would get restricted only to that in the hands of his ancestors, which excludes the cost of any encumbrance created by them. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)(b) of the Act, in order to entitle the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of the cost of any improvement, the expenditure should have been incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital asset that was originally acquired by the previous owner and if the previous owner had mortgaged the property and the assessee and his co-owners cleared off the mortgage so created, it could not be said that they incurred any expenditure by way of effecting any improvement to the capital asset that was originally purchased by the previous owner. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions of the High Court in Salay Mohamad Ibrahim Sait v. ITO [1994] 210 ITR 700 (Ker) and K.V. Idiculla v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 386." 6. Ther....