ITO, CHENNAI V. Raghu Ramadas, CHENNAI

ITA 244/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4789 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Gift; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !', $ %& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.244/MDS/2017 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 3(5), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI RAGHU RAMADAS, FLAT NO.5B, 5C, KGS VRUDHI APARTMENTS, NEW NO.216, 220, 222, OLD NO.867 PH. ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI - 600 010. PAN : AAEPR 5864 K (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 2 0 3$ / DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.2017 4!* 0 3$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.04.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI , DATED 27.10.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 I.T.A. NO.244/MDS/17 2. NO ONE ATTENDED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF ISSU E OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THEREFORE, WE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO INDE X FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL OWNER ACQUIRED THE ASSET. ACCOR DING TO THE LD. D.R., THE PROPERTY CAME TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF S ETTLEMENT DEED, THEREFORE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE ASCERT AINED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY CAME TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY O F SETTLEMENT DEED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN MANJULA J. SHAH (2013) 355 ITR 474. ACCOR DING TO THE LD. D.R., THE COST INDEXATION HAS TO BE MADE UNDER SECT ION 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PROPERTY BY W AY OF SETTLEMENT DEED, OTHERWISE IT IS KNOWN AS GIFT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO.244/MDS/17 JUDGMENT OF MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA), THE INDEXATION HAS TO BE MADE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. IN FACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA) DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE INFLATION INDEXATION FROM THE DATE ON W HICH THE ORIGINAL OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBU NAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH APRIL, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !' ) ( . . . ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 24 TH APRIL, 2017. KRI. 0 .378 98*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 :3 () /CIT(A)-4, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-5, CHENNAI 5. 8; .3 /DR 6. ) < /GF.