JUNE PERRETT Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Officer Ward-1, chickmagalur which has been affirmed by the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangajore and further affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ita No. 678/bang/99 on 5-3-2002.

(2.) THE assessee is one of the daughters of one A. W. S. Barnard. A. W. S. Barnard died leaving behind a Will appointing one Mrs. Elsie F. Barnard, Mr. Robin Alexander barnard and Mr. David Barnard, as executors, who were all residents of United Kingdom. A. W. S. Barnard owned a residential house situated in Bangalore. As per the Will, the executors were required to obtain probate of the will and thereafter sell the residential property and divide the sale proceeds and distribute the same to the three sons and a daughter of A. W. S. Barnard. After the death of A. W. S. Barnard, the executors filed probate proceedings and obtained the probate by paying a Court fee of Rs. 1,23,000/- towards letter of administration. Since the executors were residing in England, they were forced to come to India in order to settle the matter. The probate proceedings were opposed by one of the sons of A. W. S. Barnard. Therefore, there was a long drawn litigation. Further, the house was illegally occupied by a maid servant. In order to secure the vacant possession of the property, the executors were forced to file an eviction Petition in Bangalore and ultimately they succeeded in Court. Accordingly, the possession was obtained. After obtaining the possession and after clearing all the litigation pending over the house property, it was sold on 23-11 -1995 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,18,46,850/ -. The assessee being a daughter of A. W. S. Barnard, received 1/4th of the sale proceeds of the house, filed return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 showing Vim of the capital gains. While computing capital gains, she claimed certain expenditures incurred by the executors towards litigation expenses, travelling expenses incurred by them to travel from England to India and their stay at Bangalore and the fee paid to the Lawyers towards litigation expenses. The expenses claimed by the assessee while computing the capital gains, were rejected by the Assessing officer. Against the said order, she filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which appeal was also allowed in part denying the expenses incurred towards legal and professional taxes, executors expenses in India, executors expenses in England and the Court fee paid to obtain letter of administration. Against the order of the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), an appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the same has also been rejected. Against the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the present appeal is filed, raising the following substantial question of law.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.