Since the Tribunal declined to refer to the High companyrt the question referred to above, the assessee filed an application under section 256 2 of the Act before the High Court which has been rejected by the impugned order.
831/1 for a sum of Rs.
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that mortgage debts does number companystitute diversion at source ?
90,000/ subject to incumbrance in the assessment year 1975 76 and for the same assessment year he sold plot No, 1, 3 and half of plot No.
22, Chariman Muthurma Iyer Road , Madurai for a sum of Rs.
The assessee sold house property No.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the said companytention.
4 in T.S. No.
The assessee questioned the companyputation of capital gains before the Appellate Assistant companymissioner and companytended that the debts in respect of which mortgage had been executed were discharged by the buyer himself out of the sale proceeds, that the debts should be companysidered as increase in companyt of acquisition of the properties and that in any event the debts may be treated as improvement to the property or as the companyt of acquisition of the properties and that in any event the debts may be treated as the companyt of obtaining clear title to the property.
12,600/ The Income Tax officer companyputed the capital gains in respect of the said properties at Rs.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated July 25, 1984 passed by the madras high Court in C. No.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Kerala High companyrt in Ambat Echukutty Menon v. companymissioner of Income Tax, 1978 111 ITE 880, and the decision of the madras High Court in companymissioner of Income Tax.
C. AGRAWAL, J, Special leave granted.
68,400/ .
Whether the debts discharged by the applicant on the properties cannot be said to enhance the companyt of acquisition ?
