ITO 20(2)(2), MUMBAI V. NARENDRA R. KENIA (HUF), MUMBAI

ITA 556/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8297 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T A KHAN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 556/MUM/2016 : A.Y : 2011 - 12 ITO - 20(2)( 2 ), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) VS. NARENDRA R. KENIA (HUF) 699, 2 ND FLOOR, CHANDRA VILLA, DR. DINSHAW MASTER ROAD, PARSI COLONY, DADAR (E), MUMBAI 400 014 (RESPONDENT) PAN : AAAHN8918C APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.A. KHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MEHUL SHAH DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 11 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 /11/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 32, MUMBAI DATED 02.11.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI DATED 29.03.2014 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 556/MUM/2016 NARENDRA R. KENIA (HUF) 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA SHAH, 3 55 ITR 474 (BOM.) , WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, CONTINUES TO HOLD THE FIELD AND HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED BY ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE AFFIRMED. SO HOWEVE R, IN ORDER TO IMPART COMPLETENESS TO THE ORDER, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT. 3. THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF A PROPERTY BEARING NO. 699, DR. DINSHAW MASTER ROAD, PARSI COLONY, DADAR, MUMBAI 400 014 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 - 97 THOUGH THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO 1 .4.1981. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE INDEXATION FACTOR OF THE YEAR 1980 - 81 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE INDEXATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDEXATION FACTOR FOR F INANCI AL Y EAR 1996 - 97, WHEN ASSESSEE ACTUALLY INHERITED/ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJULA SHAH (SUPRA) . SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA SHAH (SUPRA) SQUARELY COVERS THE CONTROVERSY, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 3 ITA NO. 556/MUM/2016 NARENDRA R. KENIA (HUF) 4. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAVISH SOOD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 2 2 N D NOVEMBER , 201 7 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, B BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI