TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat market value of the plot of land on the date of allotment shall be the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains. - Decided against revenue - ITA No 2072/MUM/2013 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2016 - SHRI G.S.PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) For The Appellant : Shri. Jasbir S. Chouhan For The Respondent : Shri. H.P. Mahajani ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against order dated 24/12/2012 passed by the CIT (Appeals)-36, Mumbai pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in response to notice issued under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) the assessee filed her return of income for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en reiterated by the Tribunal in Atul Puranik s case. In this case, the ITAT further held that capital gain arising on sale of asset acquired(leasehold rights) in lieu of the original surrendered asset would be computed by reducing from the sale consideration the fair market value of the plot acquired by the assessee on surrender of original assets. 4. Dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds:- (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by the A.O under the head Long Term Capital Gain by holding that the cost of acquisition of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO in the light of the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri. G. Atul Puronik vs. ITO, ITA No. 3051/M/2010 and law laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High court in Nila Products Ltd. 148 ITR 99 and Shiribai Pundole 129 ITR 448(Bom). The assessee was a tenant in flat No. 283, First floor, Vincent Terrace, Goculdas Past Road, Dadar, Mumbai. On 20/12/1984 the assessee, entered into an agreement with the landlady to surrender her tenancy rights, in lieu of getting ownership of a flat, as the landlady wanted to reconstruct the whole building which was in dilapidated condition. Accordingly, under that agreement assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant material on record. It is observed that the cost of acquisition of Sanpada land was taken by the assessee at ₹ 1,07,90,000/- being 83% of the market value of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- of the entire land on the date of allotment as valued by the Registered Valuer. The AO, however, took the same as Nil relying on the provisions of sec. 45(5), while the ld. CIT(A) took the same at ₹ 52,000/-, being the premium paid by the assessee for obtaining the said land. As rightly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue had come up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499) wherein a similar plot of land was allotted to the assessee as compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the aforesaid case. No case law contrary to the findings of the co-ordinate Bench was brought to our notice by either of the parties. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order is neither contrary to the expressed provisions of law nor contrary to the settled principles of law. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to interfere with. Hence, respectfully following the view taken by the co-ordinate Benches in Atul G.Purnaik vs. ITO and Shri Ramesh Abaji Walavalkar vs. ACIT (supra), we uphold the order dated 30.1.2012 passed of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
