Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
273419914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-07-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
E
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
08-04-2013
Judgement Text
, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND B. R.BASKARAN (AM) . . , . . , ./I.T.A. NO.2734/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, 16(1)(1), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400007 / VS. SURESH NARAINDAS VASWANI, 12, SHANTI NO.1, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400026 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( ! ' / RESPONDENT) ./ #$ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABPV1041R % / APPELLANT BY : CAP.PRADEEP SHOURYA ARYA !' & % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY R P ARIKH ' & ( ) / DATE OF HEARING : 10.7.2014 *+ & ( ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.7.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-27, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE URGED BY THE REVENUE IN T HIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTIT LED TO CLAIM INDEXATION BENEFIT FROM 1.4.1981, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD INHERITED BE NEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ONLY ON 10.04.2001. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE SAID ISSUE ARE S TATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SOLD HIS SHARE IN A FAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED AT ANDEHRI-KURLA ROAD, MUMBAI. HE HAD INHERITED THE S AME FROM HIS ANCESTORS ON 10.04.2001 AND THE ANCESTORS HAD PURCHASED THE PROP ERTY PRIOR TO 01.4.1981. WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INDEXATION BENEFIT FROM I.T.A. NO.2734/MUM/2013 2 1.4.1981. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED T HE INDEXATION BENEFIT FROM 10.4.2001 (I.E. FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD INHER ITED THE PROPERTY). EVEN THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED B Y THE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J SHAH (2013)(355 ITR 474), YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE SAME WITH THE REASONING THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE D EPARTMENT. 4. THE LD CIT(A) HOWEVER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON ALL THE AUTHORITIES COMING UNDER ITS JURISDICTIO N UNTIL THE SAID DECISION IS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE DECISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 10TH JULY, 2014 . *+ ' , -. / 0 10TH JULY, 2014 + & 2 3 SD SD ( . . / H.L. KARWA) ( . . , / B.R. BASKARAN ) / PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ' MUMBAI: 10TH JULY,2014. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS I.T.A. NO.2734/MUM/2013 3 ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' 5( ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ' 5( / CIT CONCERNED 5. 67 2 !(8 , ) 8 , - ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 2 9 : / GUARD FILE. ; ' / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY < # (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ) 8 , - ' /ITAT, MUMBAI
Mehul