ACIT CIRCLE 12(3), MUMBAI V. NARAINDAS L.SAKRANEY, MUMBAI

ITA 6564/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA DR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6564/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE-12(3), ROOM NO.137, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400020 / VS. SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY, 1A, COURT CHAMBERS, 35, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400020 ( # / REVENUE) ( $%& ' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AADPS3266M # / REVENUE BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA-DR $%& ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI NONE ( #) * ' + / DATE OF HEARING : 01/04/2015 * ' + / DATE OF ORDER: 08/04/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 06/08/2013, OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, M UMBAI, ON SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 2 THE GROUND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AS CO MPUTATION OF THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION BY HOLDING THAT SUCH INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE TAKEN FROM TH E DATE ON WHICH IT WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND NOT FRO M THE DATE FROM WHICH THE ASSET WAS FIRST HELD BY THE ASS ESSEE. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA, LD. DR, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AND ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICA L TO THE GROUND RAISED. HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUANCE OF REGISTERED AD NOTI CE, CONSEQUENTLY, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-P ARTY, QUA THE ASSESSEE, AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2.1. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPROD UCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT UNCONTROVERTED FINDING RECOR DED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) FOR READY REFERENCE AND PERUSAL/ANALYSIS:- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI VS. MANJULA J SH AH IN INCOME-TAX APPEAL NO.3378 OF 2010 DATED 11TH OCTOBER, 2011, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HE LD THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON T RANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAD TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER F IRST SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 3 HELD THE ASSET AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESS EE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER PURCHASED A FLAT ON 29/01/1993 AT A COST OF RS.50.48 LAKHS. SHE GIFTED THE FLAT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 01/02/2003. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE FLAT ON 30/06/2003 FOR RS.1.10 CRORES. IN COMPUTING THE LTCG, THE ASSE SSEE TOOK THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION UNDER EXPLANAT ION (III) TO SEE. 48 ON THE BASIS THAT SHE 'HELD' THE F LAT SINCE 29/01/1993. THE A.O. HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSES HAD HELD THE FLAT FROM 61/02/2003, THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR 2002- 03 WOULD BE APPLICABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) AND, THEREAF TER, THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEA L BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT TOOK UP THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FOR HEARI NG:- 'WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT, WHETHER THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET OR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET ?' 3.3.1 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT EXAMINED THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE CAPITA L GAINS AND HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED ANY CAPIT AL ASSET UNDER A GIFT OR WILL WITHOUT INCURRING ANY CO ST OF ACQUISITION, THERE WOULD BE NO CAPITAL GAINS LIABIL ITY. HOWEVER, SEC. 49(1 )(II) OF THE ACT PROVIDED THAT I N THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE ACQUIRING AN ASSET UNDER. A 'GI FT' OR 'WILL', THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED IT, AS INCREASED BY THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSET INCURRED OR BORNE BY THE SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 4 PREVIOUS OWNER OR THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASE MAY BE. THUS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEEMING FICTION CONTAINED I N SEE. 49(1)(II) OF THE ACT, GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT OR WILL WOULD ARISE. IN SUCH A CASE, THE CAPITAL GAINS U/S 48 OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE T OTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, INTER-ALIA, THE DEEMED COST OF ACQUISITION. IN PARA 17 OF THEIR JUD GMENT, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 'WE SEE NO MERIT IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION. AS RIGHTL Y CONTENDED BY MR. RAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE DETERMINE D WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS 'HELD BY THE ASSESSEE'. SINCE THE EXPRESSION 'HELD BY THE ASSESSEE' IS NOT DEFINE D UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THAT EXPRESSION HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. EXPLANATION 1 (I)(B) TO SECTION 2( 42A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES. THAT IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH AN ASSET IS HELD BY AN ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER SHALL BE INCLUDED. AS THE PREVIOUS OWNER HELD THE CAPITAL AS SET FROM 29/1/1993, AS PER EXPLANATION 1(I)(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE H ELD THE CAPITAL ASSET FROM 29/1/1993. BY REASON OF THE DEEMED HOLDING OF THE ASSET FROM 29/1/1993, THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE HELD THE ASSET AS A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET. IF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS LIABILITY HAS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT BY TREATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THE CAPITAL ASSET FROM 29/1/1993, THEN, NATURALLY IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 5 MUST BE TREATED TO HAVE HELD THE ASSET FROM 29/1/19 93 AND ACCORDINGLY THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR 1992-93 WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 18) IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEEMING FICTION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 (I)(B) TO SECTION 2( 42A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN COMPUTING THE CAPIT AL GAINS UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT IS ACCEPTED, THEN, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX, BECAUSE, IT IS ONLY BY APPLYING THE DEEMED FIC TION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 (I)(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) AND SECTION 49(1)(II) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE HELD THE ASSET FROM 291111993 AND DEEMED TO HAVE INCURRED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND ACCORDING LY MADE LIABLE FOR THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX. TH EREFORE, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE BY INTRODUCING THE DEEMING FIC TION SEEKS TO TAX THE GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED UNDER A GIFT OR WILL AND THE DEEMED FICTION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIO N OF REVENUE THAT THE FICTION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 (I)(B) TO SECTION 2( 42A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION UNDER S ECTION 48 OF THE ACT.' ' 3.3.2 IN PARA 21 OF THEIR JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 'THEREFORE, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSES COVERED UNDER SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT, THE CAPITAL GAINS LIABILITY HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY CONSI DERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THE SAID ASSET FROM THE DATE IT WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE SAME ANALOGY HAS ALSO TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. ' 3.3.3 IN PARA 22 OF THEIR JUDGMENT, THE' HON'BLE HI GH SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 6 COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 'IF INDEXATION IS LINKED TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING T HE ASSET AND IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COVERED UNDER SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING THE ASSET HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SA ID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER, THEN OBVIOUSLY IN ARRIVING AT THE INDEXATION, THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER WOULD BE THE F IRST YEAR FOR WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE.' 3.3.4 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FINALLY HELD THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A ' CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAD TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET. 3.3.5 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE IS COVERED U/S 49(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE, APPLYING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA), THE CAPITAL GAIN LIABILITY HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THE SAID ASSET F ROM THE DATE IT WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE SAME ANALOGY HAS ALSO TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. IN ARRIVING AT THE INDEXATION, THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WERE H ELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER WOULD BE THE FIRST YEAR FOR WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF COMPU TING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSETS IN QUESTION CANNOT BE UPHELD: SINCE, THE SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 7 PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE ACQUIRED. BY THE ASSESS EE BY WAY OF GIFT AND WILL, WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS IN QUESTION, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN ;WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE ASSETS IN QUESTION FIRST HELD THE ASSETS PRIOR TO 1981 -82. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE O F THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT NISHA SAKRANEY HAVE GIFTED HER 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION TO SUBHASH SAKRANEY ON 30/05/1995 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIFTED BY SUBHASH SAKRANEY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30/08/2004. HENCE, FOR THIS PART OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS FIRST GIFTED TO SUBHASH SAKRANEY ON 30/05/1995, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSETS WOULD BE THE YEAR 1995-96. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL, THEREFORE, EXAMINE THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO B E CORRECT, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WILL BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR 1995-96 AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR 1981-82 AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE PART OF THE ASSETS WHICH AR E CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY SUBHASH SAKRANEY ON 30/08/2004 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE (AND WHICH WAS HELD BY THE DONOR FROM 02/09/1968, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WILL BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR 1981-82 AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 8 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT-FORTH B Y THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.1,51,58,752/- ON THE SALE OF ARUN CHAMBER (UN IT NO.707, 708 AND 709) OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THESE UNITS ON 30/08/2004 AS THE PROPERTY WAS GIFTED TO T HE ASSESSEE BY SUBHASH SAKRANEY. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF INDEXED VALUED HAVI NG THE BASE YEAR 1981-82. AS PER THE LD. DR/AO, INDEXATIO N HAS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE DATE WHEN THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES AND NOT AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATI ON TAKEN AS 01/04/1981. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS ADOPTED AS ON 01/04/1981 AS THE ASSET WAS PURCHASED BY THE EARLIE R OWNER PRIOR TO 01/04/1981, THEREFORE, INDEXATION HAS TO B E ON THE INDEX BASE 100 BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISIO N IN MRS. PUSHPA SOFAR VS ITO AND DCIT VS MANJULA J. SHAH (SB ). THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE ASSET VIDE GIFT ON 03/08/2004, CONSEQUENTLY, THE INDEXED COST WAS TO BE CALCULATED AS PER SECTION 48, EXPLANATION III OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT THE BAS E YEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS 2004-05, WHEN THE ASSESSE E BECAME THE OWNER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE FORE, WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING TH E INDEXED COST FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AS AGAINST TH E INDEXATION SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 9 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82 RESULTING INTO CAPITAL G AINS AT RS.2,34,92,236/- AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S OF RS.1,51,58,752/-, DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIN D THAT IDENTICALLY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. PUSHPA SOFAR VS ITO AND DCIT VS MANJULA J. SHAH (SPECIAL BENCH) DEL IBERATED UPON THE ISSUE AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANJUL A SHAH WAS AFFIRMED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN 16 TAXMAN. COM 42. IDENTICALLY, VIDE ORDER DATED 24/04/2011 I N JAYESH SHETH VS ITO, ITA NO.3584/MUM/2010, IT WAS HELD THAT FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE, THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN MANJULA SHAH SHALL APPLY. IN ANOT HER DECISION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CIT V S SMT. NITA KAMLESH TANNA (2014) 220 TAXMAN 165 (BOM.) WHI LE INTERPRETING SECTION 48 OF THE ACT AND COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS (COST INFLATION INDEX), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE INHERITED PROPERTY FROM HIS MOTHER IN AY 2007-08, WHICH WAS O RIGINALLY ACQUIRED BY HIS FATHER IN 1979, HELD THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION, AS ON 01/04/1981 HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THE BENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF INFLATION IS GIVEN TO ENSURE THE TAXPAYER PAYS C APITAL GAINS TAX ON REAL OR ACTUAL GAIN AND NOT ON INCREASE IN CAPITAL VALUE OF PROPERTY DUE TO INFLATION. WHILE COMPUTING CAPI TAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS, ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT, INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH PREVIOUS OWNER, FIRST HELD THE ASSET AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET. EXPLANATION (III) PROVIDES IND EX COST OF SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 10 ACQUISITION MEANS AN AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE SAME PROPORTION AS COST INFLATION I NDEX FOR THE YEAR, IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BEARS TO TH E COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASS ET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 1981. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS GIFTED ON 01/02 /2003 AND THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE FLAT ON 30/06/2003 FOR RS .1.10 CRORES. APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J. SHA H (SUPRA), THE CAPITAL GAINS LIABILITY HAS TO BE COMP UTED BY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THE ASSET FROM T HE DATE IT WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE SAME ANALOGU E HAS TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUI SITION. SINCE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED BY WAY OF GIFT/WILL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PR EVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND N O INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 01/04/2015. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (JOG INDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; , DATED : 08/04/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . SHRI NARAINDAS L. SAKRANEY 11 %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -./0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 3 ( 4' ( -. ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. P4. 3 3 ( 4' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 6#7 1'$ , 3 -.+ -$ 8 , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9% :) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 26.' 1' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI