JAGDISH S. NAYAMPALLY, MUMBAI V. ACIT 19(1), MUMBAI

CO 232/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8029 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JAGDISH A NAGWEKAR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI .. , ! ' #$ %& , ' ' , ( BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./ ITA NO.8329/MUM/2011 ( '* + '* + '* + '* + / / / / ASST YEAR : 2007-2008) THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 19(1) MUMBAI. SHRI JAGDISH S.NAYAMPALLY 601 SATGURUKALYAN, 77/481, 17 TH & 18 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400 052. PAN : ADPPN6945F. ( ,- / // / APPELLANT) * * * * / VS. ( ./,-/ RESPONDENT) ./( ./ CO NO.232/MUM/2012 ( '* + '* + '* + '* + / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008) SHRI JAGDISH S.NAYAMPALLY 601 SATGURUKALYAN, 77/481, 17 TH & 18 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400 052. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 19(1) MUMBAI. ( ./( / CROSS OBJECTOR) * * * * / VS. ( ./,-/ RESPONDENT) 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 / REVENUE BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN '* 2$ 0 1 / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAGDISH A.NAGWEKAR * 0 $! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2012 34+ 0 $! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2012 '% '% '% '% / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY T HE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX ITA NO.8329/M/2011 & CO.232/M/2012 SHRI JAGDISH S.NAYAMPALLY. 2 (APPEALS) ON 20.10.2011 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007- 2008. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DETERMINING LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01 .04.1981 IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET. THE CASE O F THE REVENUE IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE PRO PERTY IN THE YEAR 1994 I.E. AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER, ONLY THE L ATER DATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANJULA J.SHAH [(2011) 16 TAXMANN.COM 42] APPROVING THE SPECIAL BENCH ORDER PASSED BY THE MUM BAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT V. MANJULA J.SHAH [(2009) 318 ITR (AT) 417] . IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THIS CASE THAT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IS TO BE APPLIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE SAID ASSET. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), BEING IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ABOVE VIEW, IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ASSESSEES C ROSS OBJECTION IS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), WHICH HAS, THEREFORE, BECOME ACADEMIC. ITA NO.8329/M/2011 & CO.232/M/2012 SHRI JAGDISH S.NAYAMPALLY. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. '% 0 34+ 5'*6 4 0 7 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (R.S.SYAL) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 5'* DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. DEVDAS* '% 0 .'$#8 98+$ '% 0 .'$#8 98+$ '% 0 .'$#8 98+$ '% 0 .'$#8 98+$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : () / THE CIT(A)-30, MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT 5. 8=7 .'$'* , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7> ? / GUARD FILE. '%* '%* '%* '%* / BY ORDER, /8$ .'$ //TRUE COPY// @ @ @ @/ // /A A A A ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI