ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI V. LEGAL HERI OF LATE SUSHILA H AHUJA, MUMBAI

ITA 735/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93228 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Gift; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO . 735/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 THE ACIT - 20(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 012 / VS. LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SUSHILA H. AHUJA, 805/806, GOLDEN RAYS, SHASTRI NAGAR, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 053 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ARXPA 4373Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI NAVEEN GUPTA / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 13 . 0 7 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .0 7 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: T HIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 31 , MUMBAI DT. 2 8 . 11 .2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 00 9 - 1 0. ITA. NO. 735/M/2014 2 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION WILL APPLY TO THE CASE EVEN THOUGH IT IS A I NHERITED PROPERTY . 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONE HOUSE PROPERTY AS A GIFT FROM HER SON VIDE GIFT DEED DT. 6.09.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THIS PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 90 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INDEXED THE COST OF ACQUISITION SO DETERMINED. THOUGH THE AO ACCEPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS THE COS T TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER BUT DECLINE D TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION AND RECOMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND DRAWING SUPPORT FROM T HE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJULA J. SHAH 249 CTR 270, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 7. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED EX PARTE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY WAY ITA. NO. 735/M/2014 3 OF GIFT FROM HER SON. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLOY APPL IED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 13 TH JU LY , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( A.D. JAIN ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 13 TH JU LY , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI