ITO (IT)- 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. VIBHA HUTCHINS, MUMBAI

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member):- 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2014-15 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 56/ITO(IT)-2(2)(1)/2016-16/254-H dated 20/02/2018 on following grounds of appeal: -

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO that indexed cost of acquisition should be taken from the year in which previous owner acquired the asset i.e. 01.04.1981 and not from the year in which assessee became owner of the asset for purpose of computation of LTCG. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored

, the issue before us stand in a very narrow compass. The assessee being resident individual sold certain immovable property during the impugned AY. The undisputed position is that the assessee inherited the said property from her parents and the property was purchased by the parents of the assessee before 01/04/1981. Hence, the benefit of indexation was claimed by the assessee from FY 1981-82 instead of cost inflation index of the year in which ownership was transferred in the name of the assessee. Although the assessee relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Manjula Shah Vs. DCIT, however, noticing that the Special leave Petition filed by the department against the same was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the benefit as claimed by the assessee was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld. first appellate authority reversed the stand of Ld. AO by observing that the said judicial pronouncement was binding. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

3. It has been brought to the notice that even the department’s Special Leave Petition against the said binding judgement has been dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 18/09/2018 [SLP No. 19924/2012]. Accordingly, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order.