TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in respect of three different assesses. 2. At the very outset, both parties agreed that facts of all the three assesses are identical, on such agreement, we proceeded by taking up the facts in the case of Shri Hemant R. Tandel. On a clear understanding that the facts of remaining two assesses are identical to the facts of Shri Hemant R. Tandel. 3. The contentious issue in these appeals can be summarized in the following manner. i) What is the date of acquisition of the impugned property? ii) What is the cost of acquisition of the impugned property? iii) What is the sale consideration? iv) How many co-owners are there for the impugned property? 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Shri Ramchandra Mahadu Tandel who wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dt. 28.10.1994 therefore, it cannot be said that the Tandel family was aware whether they will get a compensation for the acquired land or not. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that after the notification dt. 28.10.1994, Tandel family knew that they will be compensated by the land under 12.5% Gaothan Expansion Scheme. 5.1. Shri Ramchandra Mahadu Tandel expired on 22.11.1997 and the impugned property was inherited by his legal heirs. In pursuance to the scheme launched by CIDCO Ltd., application for allotment of land from all the co-owners whose lands were acquired by the Government were invited. Accordingly, the assessee and his family members made an application for allotment of land under the scheme on 12.10.1998 by paying a sum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overn ment and the property so acquired was the property of the Tandel family prior to 1972 therefore, cost as on 1.4.1981 as per the provisions of the law should be taken as cost of acquisition. Further, the assessee claimed that Stamp Duty value adopted by the AO is not correct as provisions of Sec. 50C are not applicable in respect of the impugned transaction. 5.4. All the submissions/claims made by the assessee were rejected by the AO. 6. The matter was carried before the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts and the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Suresh Vasudeo Gore in ITA No. 1197/M/09 and Shri Atul G. Puranik in ITA No. 3051/M/10. In so far as the yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e number of co-owners is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that only 4 persons have signed the deal which means that the other members have been ousted altogether. The capital gain has arisen in the hands of only four co-owners, assessee's share being 25% has to be taxed accordingly. 7. Aggrieved by these findings of the Ld. CIT(A) both Revenue and assessee are in appeal. 8. Having heard the rival submissions, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied upon by both parties. i) Date of acquisition- It is an undisputed fact that the Maharashtra Government acquired the land belonging to the father of the assessee which was acquired by him prior to 1972. It is also an undisputed fact that subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight should be taken as cost of acquisition. In the present case, we find that the assessee has paid cost towards these impugned 2 plots at Rs. 1,63,212/- which has also been ascertained by the authorities and confirmed by them. As actual amount paid by the assessee for getting the leasehold right in these plots is available on record, we do not find it necessary for adopting market value of the same. As mentioned above, this view is also supported by the decision in the case of Shri Atul G. Puranik (supra). Accordingly, Rs. 1,63,212/- is the cost of acquisition of the two plots rightly taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore we do not find any error or infirmity in this finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 (a) of assessee's appeal is acco....