ITO 25(3)(3), MUMBAI V. RANJANA D PATIL, MUMBAI

ITA 1729/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75408 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RA O, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1729/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(3), ROOM NO.304, 3 RD FLOOR, BLDG. NO. C-11, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. RANJANA D. PATIL D- 702, RIVER PARK, OFF. W. E. HIGHWAY, KANDIVALI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 101 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAJPP 2380 H ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN '#! $ % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH SHAH & ' ( $ ) * / DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2014 +,- $ ) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2014 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-35, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 23.12.2011, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2010. 2 ITA NO. 1729/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. RANJANA D. PATIL 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE-TR ANSFEROR FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INDEXATION COST OF ACQUISITION U/S.48 OF THE ACT. T HE CAPITAL ASSET, BEING AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (IP), STOOD ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE THROU GH INHERITANCE ON THE DEMISE OF HER FATHER ON 03.03.1990. THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO TH E ASSESSEE WOULD, IN TERMS OF SECTION 49 OF THE ACT, BE THUS THAT OF HER FATHER, WHO HAD ORI GINALLY (SELF) ACQUIRED THE SAME PRIOR TO FINANCIAL YEAR (F.Y.) 1980-81. AS SUCH, WHILE THE A SSESSEE CLAIMS THE INDEXATION BENEFIT UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 48 FROM 01.04.1981, THE REVENUE ALLOWS THE SAME TO IT FROM 01.04.1989. THE MATTER, EVEN AS WAS AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES, IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY THE DECISION BY THE SPECIA L BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH [2009] 318 ITR (AT) 417 (MUM) (SB), FOLLOWED BY TH E LD. CIT(A), AND WHICH STANDS SINCE UPHELD BY THE HON'BL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH [2013] 355 ITR 474 (BOM). THE FACTS BEING UNDISPU TED, THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA EVEN AS CLARIFIED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING. THE ASSESSEE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE ALLOWED THE INDEXATIO N BENEFIT FROM 01.04.1981 ONWARDS. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . /- )0 $ / $ ) 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 06, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 3( MUMBAI; 4' DATED : 10.02.2014 .'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 3 ITA NO. 1729/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. RANJANA D. PATIL !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. & 5) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. & 5) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 8 9 ')':; , * :;- , & 3( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9 <= > ( / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & 3( / ITAT, MUMBAI