Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

June 2011

(2011) 128 ITD 24/ (2010) 8 taxmann.com 286 (Mum.) Ms. Nita A. Patel v. ITO A.Y.: 2004-05. Dated: 15-7-2009

By C. N. Vaze
Shailesh Kamdar
Jagdish T. Punjabi
Bhadresh Doshi
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 48 — (i) Indexed cost of acquisition of a property has to be calculated with reference to date when assessee acquires ownership rights over property and physical possession of property is not relevant — (ii) Amount paid to tenant for getting the possession of the property can be taken as cost of improvement and accordingly indexation can be applied.

Facts:
The assessee sold a property, being a flat, for consideration of Rs.1.68 crore. The assessee acquired the property at Rs.46.38 lakh on 27- 12-1990. However, he got the possession of the property only on 6-1-1992 and that too after paying the tenant Rs. 18,00,000 to vacate the same.

The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee got possession only on 6-1-1992, it could be said that the assessee held the property from that date in view of section 48. The AO, accordingly, calculated the indexed cost of acquisition and capital gains. AO also disallowed the payment made to the tenant for vacating the property which was claimed by the assessee as indexed cost of improvement.

On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order.

Held:
(1) Assets which are referred under the capital gains include not only the property which is tangible, but also intangible rights whose physical possession cannot be taken. The word ‘held’ used in the Explanation (iii) to section 48 does not mean physical ownership or physical possession of the property, but it refers to ownership rights only.

(2) The ownership has been passed by virtue of the agreement. Possession of property was delayed only due to the adverse possession of a tenant which subsequently got vacated and so, the assessee was deemed to be holding the property with effect from the agreement date. Accordingly claim of indexation from 27-12-1990 was correct.

(3) Further the assessee was entitled to consider the amount paid to the tenant as cost of improvement.

You May Also Like