TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the provision of section 55(2)(a) is not applicable to the case of the assessee when the section specifically deals with the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not prove that any expenditure was incurred by the previous owner for acquiring the tenancy right's. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 55(2)(b) are applicable to the case of the assessee whereas this section is app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary" 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee an individual Late. Shri. Hormuz M. Bhamgara who is represented by his legal heir, Smt. Zenobia Bhamgara has inherited tenancy rights from Smt. Rati R. Bhiwandiwala in respect of a property at Sai Kunj, Plot No.214, Dadar, Mumbai. Smt. Rati Bhiwandiwala was occupying the property for more than 50 years. Photo copy of the rent received prior to 1966 was furnished as proof before the Assessing Officer. Shri. Harmuz M. Bhamgara had sold the tenancy rights during the relevant assessment year for Rs..60 lacs. The return of income was filed declaring NIL income. During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) held that facts of the assessee are covered u/s. 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act as the capital asset becoming the property of the assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution and therefore provisions of section 55(2)(b) would be applicable and not the provisions of section 55(2)(a) of the Act. 5. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of the contention that, once capital asset in question became property of the assessee by inheritance and the previous owner acquired the property prior to 01.04.1981 then the cost of acquisition of capital asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not mentioned in section 55(2)(a) of the Act and therefore it has no relevance to the assessee's case. 7. We find that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) with reference to the submissions and the facts of the assessee's case and relevant case laws and held that the case of the assessee is falling under section 52(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Meher R. Surti v. ITO (supra) held that assessee's claim for adopting fair market value as on 01.04.1981 to compute the cost of acquisition is proper by observing as under: "5.3. I have gone through the submissions of the appellant and find considerable force in the same. Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is cost of acquisition in relation to any other capital asset. Sec.55(2)(b)(i) states that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the first day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the Fair Market Value of the asset on the first day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee. In this case, there is no dispute that the asset became the property of the appellant before 01.04.1981. Therefore, the appellant has an option of choosing the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or Fair Market Value of the asset as on 01.04.1981. The appellant chose the latter. He had furnished a copy of the valuation report given by the Government Registered Valuer. 5.3.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....market value as on 1.4.1981 to compute the cost of acquisition is to be allowed. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed." 8. On a careful reading and perusing of the findings of the Ld.CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. However, it is the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee has failed to comply to produce necessary proof for investment. We also find from the Assessment Order vide notice dated 07.07.2014 u/s. 142(1) of the Act issued to the assessee, it was asked by the Assessing Officer to submit proof of investment of Rs..60,00,000/- made u/s. 54EC of the Act. However, it is the finding of the Assessing Officer that no evid....