CIT, FARIDABAD vs. LALIT LAMBA DLF CITY GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA/620/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084748200911 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The revenue's counsel submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the revenue did not wish to press the appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The revenue sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court granted liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the gift or the applicability of the cost inflation index.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant-revenue) against an order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'D', for the assessment year 2005-06. The dispute concerned the cost of acquisition of a 3/4th share in a property. The assessee, Mr. Lalit Lamba (respondent), claimed this share was acquired through a gift from his mother and two sisters. The revenue contended that this share was relinquished in the Financial Year 1997-98, and therefore, the cost inflation index of 1997-98 should be applicable for computing the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the 3/4th share in the property had become the property of the assessee under a gift made by the assessee's mother and two sisters, and thus, the cost of acquisition of the 3/4th share in the property shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in disregarding the fact that the 3/4th share of the property was relinquished by the mother and two sisters in favour of the assessee in the Financial Year 1997-98, and as such, the cost of inflation index of 1997-98 will be applicable for computing the indexed cost of acquisition as per explanation (iii) of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in its finding regarding the gift and the applicability of the cost inflation index. It contended that the relinquishment of the property share occurred in FY 1997-98, making the 1997-98 cost inflation index applicable for calculating the indexed cost of acquisition, as per Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 48

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad .......Appellant Versus Mr. Lalit Lamba ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' New Delhi, in ITA No. 2905/Del/2008, for the assessment year 2005-06, raising the following substantial questions of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was right in law in holding that the 3/4th share in the property had become the property of the assessee under a gift made by assessee's mother and two sisters, and thus, cost of acquisition of 3/4th share in the property shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, in disregard of the fact that the 3/4th share of the property was reqlinquished REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- by the mother and two sisters in favour of the assessee in the Financial Year 1997-98 and as such the cost of inflation index of 1997-98 will be applicable for computing the indexed cost of acquisition as per explanation (iii) of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →