HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PRIVATE LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE 4, NEW DELHI

2026

The facts in brief are that the petitioner purchased a property in a slump sale in the Financial Year (FY) 1998-99 and prior to such purchase, a This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 12:46:11

It is the case of the appellant that during the FYs 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the assessee revalued its assets and accordingly, the value of the land was reduced to Rs.10,84,01,361/-.

Subsequently, the appellant sold the land and building for a sum of Rs.68,83,50,000/- and the petitioner calculated the capital gain keeping the cost of acquisition of land and building at Rs.20,93,29,162/- and paid for.

The Assessing Officer (AO) however, did not agree with the appellant’s stand and recalculated the capital gain keeping the value of the land as shown in the books of account i.e. Rs.10,84,01,361/-.

While doing so, the AO took the view that since the books of account reflected the value of the land and building at Rs.10,84,01,361/-, such figure shall be the cost of acquisition. The appellant challenged the Assessment Order dated 23.12.2016 and calculation of capital gain so made by the AO before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] by way of appeal.

The CIT(A) rejected the appellant’s appeal against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

While deciding the appeal the Tribunal in paragraph 30 has observed that the assessee had failed to produce depreciation chart prepared for the purpose of income tax.

Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, pointed out that such finding is factually incorrect, rather contrary because in previous line itself, the Tribunal has observed that the assessee has filed depreciation schedule prepared for the purpose of income tax. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 12:46:11

Be that as it may. He submitted that there may be a typographical or inadvertent error in the order of Tribunal. He further argued that in view of the certificate issued by the competent authority on 19.05.1998 under Section 269UD of the Act of 1961 (wherein the cost of acquisition of land has been determined to be Rs.20,93,29,162/-), the AO could take no other figure.

He further submitted that in a slump sale (Rs.68.83 crores) the cost of acquisition of the land has to be estimated and since the same had been estimated by none other than the appropriate authority under the Act, at Rs.20,93,29,162/-, the same has to be taken as the cost of acquisition and no other figure can be taken. It was argued that for whatever reasons or for business expediency, if the appellant had revalued its assets, such book value cannot be the cost of acquisition so far as the provisions of Act of 1961 are concerned.

We are of the firm view that the certificate dated 19.05.1998 issued by the appropriate authority under the provision of Section 269UD of the Act of 1961 has a necessary bearing. Given that said certificate was relied upon before the AO and cited before the Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have pronounced upon its effect.

The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed.

The impugned order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal is set aside to the extent of issue relating to capital gain. Other part of the Tribunals order remains intact.

The Tribunal is directed to decide the issue of capital gain afresh, after considering the certificate dated 19.05.1998 and appellant’s arguments in this regard. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 12:46:11

Needless to observe that we have not commented upon merit of the issue, more particularly the effect of the certificate dated 19.05.1998. Whatever has been observed by us, is only to the extent necessary for a remand. The Tribunal shall therefore, independently decide the issue, as directed above.