VIVEEK MATHREJA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (2)(4), MUMBAI

The ld. AR submitted that in ground no.2 of appeal, the assessee has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in not allowing benefit of indexation of land cost from 31.03.1997, i.e. when the land was first held by the assessee. The land was allotted to the assessee on 10.12.1996 for which payment was made on 06.01.199. The assessee got right in land on payment of entire consideration. Registration of land was got done on 03.07.1998. The AO instead of granting benefit of indexation from 31.03.1997 has erred in adopting 31.03.1999 as date for indexation and made addition of Rs. 7,41,384/-. The CIT(A) has upheld the findings of AO. The ld. AR contended that the benefit of indexation should be allowed to the assessee from the first date when the land was held by the assessee. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions:

Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The assessee in appeal has assailed the orders of CIT(A) on two counts i.e.

Disallowance of certain expenditure being not considered as capital/cost of improvement; and 2. The correct date of indexation for computing LTCG.

In ground no.1 of appeal, the assessee has assailed that while computing cost of acquisition, the AO has excluded: 1. Lease rental payments - Rs. 1,34,247/- 2. Water proofing charges - Rs. 2,11,001/- 3. Vacant land tax and - Rs. 1,14,662/- 4. Property Tax. - Rs. 3,05,530/- Total Rs. 7,65,440/- 7. A perusal of assessment order reveals that the AO while computing cost of acquisition has included only one initial instalment of lease rental and the subsequent instalments paid have been excluded on the ground that the expenditure is in the nature of annual lease rent to be paid on the land and आअसं. 7645/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12) does not add to the value of asset. The Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Wadhwa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after following the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Khimline Pumps Ltd. 258 ITR 459 (Bom.) held that payment for acquiring lease hold land is capital expenditure. The AO after having accepted initial instalment of lease rent as capital has erred in rejecting subsequent instalments not being in the nature of capital expenditure. The assessee has constructed building on lease hold land. The lease of the land was allowed to the assessee for 30 years, therefore, lease being in the nature of long term lease, the lease rentals are clearly in the nature of capital expenditure. 7.1. As regards water proofing charges, the assessee has pointed that water proofing was done immediately after completion of construction, this fact is evident from invoices vide which water proofing charges were paid. The OC was received by the assessee in the month of June 2007 and the water proofing charges were paid in the month of October & December 2007. The water proofing definitely adds value to the asset as it improves the life of the structure/building. The subsequent water proof coating may be considered in the nature of repairs and maintenance, in so far as initial water proofing is concerned it is integral part of construction activity, hence, it is to be included towards the cost of asset. The 3rd component that has been disallowed by the AO/CIT(A) is vacant 7.2. land tax and property tax. The payment of said taxes to the municipal authorities are perennial and does not add value to the property, hence, are not capital in nature. Payment of taxes is statutory obligation to be discharged as and when due. I find no merit in the submissions of assessee to include vacant land tax and property tax in the cost of acquisition.

In ground no.2 of appeal, the issue is: Whether the benefit of indexation should be allowed to the assessee from the date of allotment of land or from the date the document was registered in the name of assessee? A perusal of letter dated 10.12.1996 from MHADA shows that Plot No.C-6 at Majiwade-II, Thane was offered to the assessee against tender dated 28.08.1996. The assessee was required to communicate acceptance of the offer and pay sum of Rs. 21,48,300/- on or before 09.01.1997. The assessee paid the aforesaid amount on 06.01.1997 and accepted the offer. Since, the assessee had paid the agreed amount within the specified time, the assessee had acquired right in the property upon payment of consideration. The assessee held the right in property upon complying with the conditions set out in offer letter i.e. payment of amount and accepting the offer of allotment. Those conditions were complied in January 1997 although registration of title document was done in July 1998. Here it would be relevant to refer to Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act, where ‘indexed cost of acquisition’ is defined. Explanation:- (iii). Indexed cost of acquisition means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April [2001], whichever is later; A bare perusal of above definition would show that the expression ‘the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee’, cannot be interpreted in आअसं. 7645/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12) narrow sense to mean date of transfer of physical possession of asset or date of registration of title deed alone. The expression inter alia includes a date when both sides perform certain legal obligations which ultimately culminates in transfer of title and physical transfer of immovable property. The date on which such legal obligations are carried out would be the date when the asset was first held by assessee. In the present case it is the payment of consideration and acceptance of offer.

In the case of Nita A. Patel (supra), the issue before the Tribunal was relevant date for allowing the benefit of cost of acquisition. The Tribunal held that for the purpose of determining indexed cost on acquisition of property, the benefit of indexation should be allowed to the assessee from the date on which ownership rights in property were held by the assessee and not the physical ownership or physical possession.

Thus, the relevant date for providing the benefit of indexation is when the assessee had first acquired right in the property, execution of registered document is subsequent event to reinforce and protect legal sanctity of the ownership of property. I am of considered view that the benefit of indexation should be allowed to the assessee in the year, the assessee had acquired right in the property after payment of entire purchase consideration. In the instant case, since the assessee had paid the consideration amount in January 1997 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenders floated by MHADA, the benefit of indexation should be allowed to the assessee from 31.03.1997. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are set-aside and ground no.2 of the appeal is allowed.