TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andas J. Chauhan was valued at Rs. 2,20,000. One-fifth share of the assessee came to Rs. 44,000. Sub-plot No. 2 admeasuring 1,347 sq. yards including the incompletely constructed bungalow fell to the lot of the assessee, but since the assessee's share in the Hindu undivided family property at the time of partition had come to only Rs. 44,000, the assessee was required to pay Rs. 23,000 more to the Hindu undivided family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan for getting sub-plot No. 2 along with incompletely constructed bungalow which was valued at Rs. 67,000. The assessee accordingly got subplot No. 2 along with the incomplete bungalow. The assessee sold the said property for Rs. 1,42,000 on October 4, 1974. The assessee worked out the capital gain at Rs. 73,591 as per the following calculations : (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 73,591 ------- The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of Rs. 1,200 paid to contractor, but rejected the claim for Rs. 1,855 being the proportionate cost of the land. The Income-tax Officer also rejected the claim of deduction of Rs. 23,000 which the assessee had paid as the additional cost over and above the assessee's share in the Hindu undivided family property at the time of partial partition. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed deduction of Rs. 1,855 in the computation of capital gains, but rejected the assessee's claim for deduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, the cost of acquisition of the land and the incompletely constructed bungalow to the Hindu undivided family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan was required to be taken as the cost of acquisition which was only Rs. 1,885 being the value of one-fifth of the land along with Rs. 42,354 being the amount spent by the larger Hindu undivided family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan and, therefore, Rs. 44,209 was the only cost of acquisition which was required to be considered while computing the capital gain made by the assessee at the time of selling the property in the year 1974. Mr. Kureshi, therefore, submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 23,000 allowed by the Tribunal was required to be disallowed as not a single rupee out of that amount could be considered as cost of acquisition in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan. In the alternative, Mr. Kureshi submitted that even if the assessee's contentions were to be accepted that he had paid Rs. 23,000 for getting the additional interest in the property over and above his share which the assessee obtained at the time of partial partition, the Tribunal erred in not considering that the assessee was entitled to hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstantial dispute raised by the Income-tax Officer was about the amount of Rs. 23,000 which the assessee had admittedly paid for acquiring the additional interest in the property in question over and above the property allotted to the assessee at the time of partial partition. It is further submitted that the question referred to this court for opinion is only in respect of the said amount of Rs. 23,000. Moreover, against the order of the Income-tax Officer allowing deduction to the tune of Rs. 43,554 as the cost of acquisition of the asset allotted to the assessee at the time of partial partition, the Revenue had not made any grievance about the same at the hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Assist ant Commissioner or before the Tribunal. Hence, it is not open to the Revenue now to contend that in the hands of the larger Hindu undivided family the cost of acquisition in respect of the interest which was allotted to the assessee at the time of partial partition was less than Rs. 44,209. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since at the time of partial partition the assessee was not entitled to get the entire property valued at Rs. 67,....