AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment Year 2009- 10. 2. The brief facts are, the assessee, an Architect by profession, purchased a floor of property being E-215, East of Kailash, New Delhi in the month of July 1997, in terms of an unregistered agreement of sale for Rs. 18 lakhs. According to the appellant-assessee, the following amounts were debited from his bank account: 28.06.1997 Rs.14,00,000/- 07.07.1997 Rs. 8,50,000/- 08.07.1997 Rs. 7,50,000/- Total Rs.30,00,000/- 3. Between the period 23.12.1998 and 25.01.1999, four registered sale deeds were executed for 1/4th share of the residential floor in question, each deed showing a consideration of Rs. 4.50 lakh. Suffice to state, no sale deed was registered for the fixtures and fittings for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a house habitable. All the aforesaid items, although removable in the same manner as the house which is, breakable, but till the time, house remains, these attachment remains, for any house to be habitable. In the inventory details of purchases, the loose items were only two, cotton rugs of size 2" X 2" and two Pooja Stools, the cost of which would not have been more than Rs. 5000/-. 6. The Assessing officer did not agree with the stand taken by the assessee and as such, did not allow the deduction at Rs. 12 lakhs from the sale consideration holding such items as "furniture" covered under the definition of "personal asset". The Assessing Officer was of the view that the appellant assessee had purchased the aforementioned property through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer erred in not considering the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs as cost of acquisition thereby increasing the taxable long term capital gain. In the second appeal, it was the case of the appellant-assessee that the Assessing Officer erred in holding the amount as "cost of furniture" and as "personal asset" under Section 2(14) of the Act, ignoring the nature and the fact that it was the part of the gross sale consideration. It may be noted here, the assessee has also claimed the amount as "Cost of Purchase/Improvement". The appellant assessee also claimed that property in question sold in two parts (rear and front) by him in terms of the sale deeds executed in 2008 for Rs. 45 lakhs each with fittings and fixtures, which are essential f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and therefore is bad in law and on facts on the case. 2. That the Id Assessing Officer/CIT(A) in first instance erred in holding that 12,00,0.00/- was not the capital cost of acquisition of house but was the cost of furniture thus a personal assessee as per section 2(14) of the Act, without considering the nature of the said capital expenses as per the inventory detail of such purchases. However, without prejudice even if such cost is so considered by the Ld Assessing Officer, they further erred in not deducting its market value as on date of sale from the sale consideration of the hose since the gross sale consideration included the sale of such items and therefore is bad in law and on facts of the case". 10. The Tribunal, after not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase. He would state that when the appellant had sold the property, he is entitled to the deduction of the said amount for the purpose of computing capital gain. 13. On the other hand, Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Sr.Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue would support the conclusion of the Authorities below, stating that, the same is a reasoned order, considering all the aspects of the case and seek dismissal of the appeal. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we note that the issue which arises for our consideration is whether Rs. 12 lakhs paid by the appellant assessee to the seller at the time of purchase of the property in question must be construed as a cost of acquisition of the asset so as to be deducte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for acquisition of furniture and fixtures, which was by way of a following bill: "S.NO. DESCRIPTION RATE AMOUNT ENTIRE REMOVABLE WOOD WORI (..... THE FLAT I.E. ORNAMENTAL SHDW- CASE ! DISPLAY WINDOWS. WKNH- ~ENTAL PARTITION ON DRAWING ROOM, WOODEN GRILLS. WOODEN TEMPLE, WARDROBES, CUPBOARDS. CROCKERY, WINDOWS, FANS, GEYSERS ORNAMENTAL LIGHT FITTINGS, RUGS FURNITURE IXTURE COMPLETE. L.S. Rs.12,00,000/- Rs. 12,00,000/- TWELVE LACS ONLY" 16. As noted by the Assessing Officer, there was no agreement, nor any registered deed in that regard. The Assessing officer was right in noting that there was no mention in the sale deeds of Rs. 18 lakhs about purchase of the furniture and fi....