9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the scheme framed by the Government, the assessee became owner of the property on 04.03.2003 on payment of ₹ 45,062. Later on, on 31.10.2004, the house property had been sold by the assessee. The assessee computed the gain from the sale as long term capital gain, since it had tenancy rights in respect of the property since 1984. 2.1 The Assessing Officer, however, noted that the assessee had become owner of the property on 04.03.2003 and it was sold within 20 months on 31.10.2004 and therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the gain should not be computed as short term capital gain. The assessee conceded that in view of the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in case of CIT Vs. Abrar Alvi (247 ITR 312) the gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 45,062. Therefore, CIT(A) upheld the cost of acquisition at ₹ 45,062. Thus, the computation of short term capital gain made by the Assessing Officer was upheld aggrieved by which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities that the cost of acquisition of the house property was the sum total of the market value of tenancy as on 04.03.2003 and the payment of ₹ 45,062. Alternatively, it was also submitted that the market value thereof as on 04.03.2003 could be considered as cost of acquisition. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below and placed reliance on the findings given in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of tenancy right as on 04.03.2003 plus the sum of ₹ 45,062 paid by the assessee to Government. We however did not agree with the submission of Ld.AR that the cost of acquisition would be the market value of property as on 04.03.2003, because the property had been acquired under the scheme of Government which would not necessarily be at market price. Though the assessee had submitted the valuation report regarding market value of tenancy right, before CIT(A) the same remained unexamined. We therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after necessary examination of the cost of acquisition in the light of our observations made above and after allowing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
