R.M. ARUNACHALAM ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6098/1983Supreme Court1997 INSC 55409 July 1997Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA R.M. ARUNACHALAM ETC.19 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee inherited properties from his adoptive mother, U, who had received them from her deceased husband, R. R's properties had devolved upon his widow (U) and daughter (S) in equal shares. The assessee sold some of these inherited properties during the assessment years 1966-67 to 1972-73. A dispute arose concerning whether the estate duty paid by the assessee on these properties could be treated as the 'cost of acquisition' or 'cost of improvement' for calculating capital gains. The Income Tax Officer considered R as the previous owner under Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal initially rejected the ITO's order, but the Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court, which ruled against the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

1. The Supreme Court held that the charge created under Section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act does not create an interest in the property that reduces the full ownership. The charge only grants priority for recovery of estate duty. The assessee had become the full owner of the assets before paying the estate duty and did not acquire a new right upon payment. Therefore, the proportionate estate duty paid could not be treated as 'cost of acquisition' or 'cost of improvement' under Sections 48 and 55 of the Income Tax Act. The High Court was correct in its finding. The Supreme Court affirmed the Madras High Court's decision in Smt. S. Valliammai v. CIT. 2. The Supreme Court held that a payment made to clear a mortgage created by a previous owner is deductible as 'cost of acquisition' under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. This is because in a mortgage, an interest in the property is transferred. When an heir discharges the mortgage, they acquire the mortgagee's interest, which constitutes a cost of acquisition. The Court overruled the Kerala High Court's decision in Ambat Echukutty Menon's case, which held otherwise, and approved the Gujarat High Court's view in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Daksha Ramanlal. 3. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the submission regarding diversion of income for the first time before it, as it was an independent issue not considered by the Tribunal or the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proportionate part of the estate duty paid consequent to the death of the original owner (R) and his widow (U), relevant to the properties sold by the assessee, could be considered as 'cost of acquisition' or 'cost of improvement' under Sections 45, 48, and 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given that Section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, created a charge on the property. - Assessee's contention: Estate duty payable was a first charge on the capital assets under Section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act, and the amount paid towards it should be treated as 'cost of acquisition' or 'cost of improvement' under Sections 45 and 55 of the Income Tax Act. - Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly argued against the assessee's claim for deduction. 2. Whether the payment made by the heir of a mortgaged property to clear the mortgage created by the previous owner is deductible as 'cost of acquisition' under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention: Implicitly argued for deductibility, as supported by the Supreme Court's eventual reasoning. - Revenue's contention: Implicitly argued against deductibility, as per the Kerala High Court's prior ruling which was being considered. 3. Whether estate duty paid on properties acquired under a Will, subsequently sold, is deductible in computing capital gains on the ground of diversion of income. - Assessee's contention: Raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, arguing for deduction on the ground of diversion of income. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45(1),Section 48,Section 49(1),Section 55(1)(b),Section 55(2),Section 74(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A R.M. ARUNACHALAM ETC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS JULY 9, 1997 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

Income Tax Act, 1961: Sectio11s 45(1), 48(ii), 49(1) a11d 55(l)(b) read with Estate Duty Act, C 1953-Sections 53(1) and 74(1)---f'roperty after the Death of the owner devolving upon widow and daughter i11 equal shares-Widow dying a11d u11der her Will, prope1ties becomi11g the property of the assessee-Many propelties disposed of by the assessee dwing various accou11ti11g years relevant to A Ys 1966-67 to 1972-73--Under the circumstances, the propo1tionate pan of the estate duty, paid consequent to the death of the original owner and his widow, D relevant to the prope1ties sold by the assessee, held neither 'cost of acquisition' nor 'cost of improvement' of the said properties.

Capital gains--Deductions-"Cost of acquisition ''-Amount paid by the heir of a m01tgaged property to clear the m01tgage-Held, deductible under E Section 48 as cost of acquisition.

Transfer of Propelties Act, 1882: Sections 58 and JOO-Charge and mortgage-Distinguished F Words & Phrases: "Cost of acquisition" and "cost of improvement"-Meaning of in the context of Income Tax Ac

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 45(1)

All 83 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →