CIT vs. HARJEET SIKAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 543/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. . . . versus . . . HARJEET SIKAND ..... Respondent . Through: None. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 26.09.2012 . . . The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the ITAT dated 6.2.2012 in ITA No.5430/del/2011. The question of law sought to be urged is whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of the sum of Rs.67,13,490/- from the assessment made by the AO on account of long term capital gains. . The facts of the case are that the assessee succeeded to the property in question after the demise of her parents who had drawn separate wills. She was legatee to the extent of 1/3rd of the estate of her father and 1/6th of the estate of her mother. She sold the property and the proceeds were offered as long term capital gain claiming benefit of indexed cost of acquisition computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner acquired the property. The AO refused to give the benefit of indexed cost, holding that the indexed cost will be computed only with reference to the year in which the assessee became the owner of the property. The assessee?s appeal was accepted; the Appellate Commissioner relied upon the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in DCIT v. Manjula J. Shah, (2010) 35 SOT 105. The Tribunal followed that decision as well as the subsequent decision of the Delhi Bench in Aftab Shah v. ACIT. . This Court notices that view of the Special Bench was approved and endorsed in a previous judgment of this Court in Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT (ITA No.116/2011, decided on 13.02.2012) and subsequent judgments of the Court. The order of the Special Bench (supra) was itself affirmed by the Bombay High Court in (2009) 318 ITR 417. . In these circumstances, there is no ground to take a different view in this case. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises. . The appeal is accordingly dismissed. . . . . . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 . /vks/ . . . $ 3 .