ASST. CIT CIR 19(1), MUMBAI V. SEEMA N. AJINKYA, MUMBAI

ITA 6918/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8565 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V KRISHNAMOORTY
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHAD J SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.6918/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT 19(1)-1, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-012. SMT. SEEMA N. AJINKYA, 401, ANAND DHAM, 10 TH ROAD, KHAR(W), MUMBAI-52. PA NO.ADKPA 2163 R (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.KRISHNAMOORTY RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARSHAD J SHAH DATE OF HEARING: 22.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.10.2012 ORDER PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST ORDER DATED 9.7.2010 OF LD CIT(A) -30 ON FOLLOWING GROUN DS 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE INDEXATION FROM TH E DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BEFORE 01.04.1981 INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ASSET ON INHERITANCE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE C LAUSE (B) OF SECTION 2(42A) IS ONLY FOR DETERMINING THE PERIOD HELD BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING THE ASSET AS A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND EXPLANAT ION (III) TO SECTION 48 CLEARLY STATES THAT THE COST INFLATION INDEX SHALL BE FROM THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. 3) THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J. SHAH ITA NO.7315/MUM/2007 DATED 16.06.2009 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD D.R. RELIED ON ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER SMT. VAISH ALI N AJINKYA IN I.T.A. ITA NO.6918/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2 NO.6917/M/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORD ER DATED 25.4.2010, WHICH WAS DECIDED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MANJULA J SHAH(2012) 204 TAXMAN 691. LD A.R. S UBMITTED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. LD D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE ABOVE CONTENTION OF LD A.R. THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE BEFORE US AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. VAISHALI N AJINKYA (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER BY REJECTING GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND OCTOBER, 2012 SD/- (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22 ND OCTOBER, 2012 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH E MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI