Vivek Syal, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3032/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7748 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R LAKSHMI RATAN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3032/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SHRI VIVEK SYAL, 26/1, ARUNDALE BEACH ROAD, KALAKSHETRA COLONY, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI 600090 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2(2), CHENNAI PAN: ACVPV4845R ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. LAKSHMI RATAN, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT ! /DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2017 '# ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16, CHE NNAI DATED 23.08.2016 IN ITA NO.26/CIT(A)-16/2012-13 AND IT PE RTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL; HOWEVER THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ONLY TWO ISSUES SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION AND THEY ARE BRIEFLY STATED AS FOLLOWS :- 2 I.T.A. NO.3032/MDS/2016 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAD FAILED TO ADOPT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD INHERITED THE IMMO VABLE ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION WHILE COMPUTING THE L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO WHO HAD FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE EX ECUTION OF THE TWO SALE DEEDS WERE MERELY TO REAFFIRM THE POSSESSION O F THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRANSFER O F PROPERTY TRIGGERING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAD ADOPTED THE DATE OF SETTLEMENT DEED VIZ., 27.02.2009 AS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET, THEREBY COMPUTED INDEXATION FROM THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE SETTLER TH E GRANDMOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82. THE L D. AR FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION HAS TO BE PR OVIDED FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82 BY VIRTUE OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS SUC H AS :- I. ACIT VS. VIJAY KAMLAKAR WAGH (ITA NO.5616/MUM/20 10, ITAT MUMBAI) II. DCIT VS. JYOTIBEN ROHITBHAI GANDHI (ITA NO.2369 /AHD/2012, ITAT AHMEDABAD) III. ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST VS. CIT (ITA NO.116/2011, DELHI HIGH COURT) 3 I.T.A. NO.3032/MDS/2016 THE LD. A.R FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE DECI SIONS WERE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, THE REVENUE MAY BE DIRECTED TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION T O THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82. 4. THE LD. DR THOUGH ARGUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO HIS SUBMISSIONS. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, I FIND MERIT IN THE SU BMISSION OF THE LD. AR. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR, ON VARIOUS OCCAS IONS CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION CITED SUP RA AND HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION IN THE CASE OF INHERITANCE TH E COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER HAS TO BE TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERAT ION, FOR INSTANCE THE SAME RATIO WAS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE MR. V.P. ANANDA N V/S., INCOME TAX OFFICER, A BENCH OF THE CHENNAI BENCH ITA NO. 3 9/MDS/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 VIDE ORDER DATED 19/09/16. THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. AO TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82. ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR. 4 I.T.A. NO.3032/MDS/2016 6. WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND GROUND, BOTH THE PART IES AGREED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 IS REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR DE-NOVA CONSIDERATION 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% /CHENNAI, &' /DATED 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2017 JR. ' )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. *-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF.