ACIT, New Delhi V. Ms. Harjeet Sikand, New Delhi

ITA 5430/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 543020114 RSA 2011
• 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: C
• 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: SALIL MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: R SANTHAN AM
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA ITA NO. 5430/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YR: 2008-09 ACIT CIRCLE-23, VS. MS. HARJEET SIKAND, NEW DELHI. 303, MANSAROVAR, 90, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. AAKPS4239B (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. SANTHANAM ADV. O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST CIT (A)S ORDER D ATED 5-9-2011 RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09. SOLE GROUND RAISED IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 67 ,13,490/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN . 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET CONTENDS THAT THE BRIEF FACTS IN REVENUES APPEAL ARE: THE ASSESSEE HAD S UCCEEDED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY WAY OF SUCCESSION TO HER FATHER AND MOTHER, WHO DEMISED LEAVING SEPARATE WILLS. THE ASSESSEE BECAME ELIGIBL E TO 1/3 RD OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DEATH OF HER FATHER IN JUNE 1988 AND 1/6 TH ON THE DEATH OF HER MOTHER IN OCTOBER 2006. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSES SEE AND PROCEEDS WERE OFFERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, CLAIMING BENEFI TS OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. AO THOUGH ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BUT REFUSED TO GIVE BENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF ACQ UISITON, IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 49(1). ITA 5430/DEL/11 HARJEET SIKAND 2 2.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A), WHO RELYING ON THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI DECISION IN THE CA SE OF DCIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH (2010) 35 SOT 105, ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT IN CASE OF DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HAND OF SUCCESSOR WILL BE THE SAME AS IN THE HANDS OF BEQUEATHER AND INDEXATION BENEFIT IS TO BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE WHILE CALCULATING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY TH E ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF AFTAB SETH V. DIT RENDERED IN ITA NO. 3364/DEL/0 8 VIDE ORDER DATED 23- 7-2009, COPY OF PLACED ON RECORD. 3. LEARNED DR IS HEARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPE RTY BY WAY OF SUCCESSION, ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, HIS OWNERSHIP DATES BA CK TO THE ONE IN THE HANDS OF THE BEQUEATHER. IN VIEW OF THAT, RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED ITAT JUDGMENTS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06-02-2012. ( A.N. PAHUJA ) ( R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06-02-2012. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT. ITA 5430/DEL/11 HARJEET SIKAND 3