ACIT, New Delhi V. Mrs. Nandita Soni, New Delhi

ITA 5428/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58550 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: B K ANAND
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL I.T.A. NO.5428(DEL)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF NANDIT A SONI, INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), VS. D-838, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: ASCPS7553A (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. NEGI, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SH RI B.K. ANAND, C.A DATE OF HEARIN G: 06.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT: 06.02.2012. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : A.M THE ONLY QUESTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS-WHETHER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN WHICH THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS DETERMINED FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSET WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF GI FT? 2. WHILE THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED ON THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. ITA NO.5428(DEL)/2011 2 3. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT WAS AS UND ER:- WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRA NSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GI FT, WHETHER THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUT ED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWN ER FIRST HELD THE ASSET OR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECA ME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET? 3.1 THE FINDING OF THE COURT IS THAT THE COST HAS TO BE INDEXED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER, WHO GIFTED THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CONNECTION, PARAGRAPH NO. 23 OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS HELD LI ABLE FOR LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX BY TREATING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOU S OWNER AS THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS ALSO TO BE DETERMINED ON THE VERY SAME BASIS. 4. SINCE THE MATTER IS NO LONGER RES-INTEGRA, WE D ECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5428(DEL)/2011 3 SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- NANDITA SONI, NEW DELHI. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT, THE D.R., ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.