Dr. Sureshmohan, L/H. of Rangamoorthy, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2238/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7934 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVASJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS S JAYASHREE

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2238/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 LATE RANGAMOORTHY - DR. SURESHMOHAN L/H OF LATE RANGAMOORTHY, NO.6-D, VED NIVAS, NO.52, TAYLORS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 010. PAN : ACSPR 0304 C V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 17(1), CHENNAI - 600 006. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : MRS. S. JAYASHREE, FCA /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -5, CHENNA I, DATED 21.04.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2 I.T.A. NO.2238/MDS/16 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 4 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEA L BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAU SE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE C ONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. 4. SMT. S. JAYASHREE, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 20,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AS THE DA TE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE GOT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. ACCOR DING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED, THEREFO RE, THE COST OF ORIGINAL ACQUISITION BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS TO B E TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJE CTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT O F BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANJULA J. SHAH (2013) 355 ITR 474, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITI ON OF PREVIOUS 3 I.T.A. NO.2238/MDS/16 OWNER FROM WHOM THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED, HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSET WAS INHERI TED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN THE YEAR 2002, THEREFORE, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY ON DEATH OF THE PRE VIOUS OWNER. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COST OF INDEXATION, WHETHER THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TAKEN OR THE DATE ON WHICH T HE PREVIOUS OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE TAKEN? THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN MANJULA J. SHA H (SUPRA). THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOUND THAT INDEXATION HAS TO BE MADE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET WAS ACQUIRED B Y THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUS TIFIED IN TAKING THE DATE OF INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION. 4 I.T.A. NO.2238/MDS/16 ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE COST OF THE ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THEREAFTER DETER MINE THE CAPITAL GAIN AS HELD BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN MANJULA J. SHA H (SUPRA). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-9, CHENNAI 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.