ITO 20(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NARENDRA R. KENIA (HUF), MUMBAI

At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah, 355 ITR 474 (Bom.), which has been relied upon by the CIT(A) for allowing the relief to the assessee, continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority and, therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) deserves to be affirmed. So however, in order to impart completeness to the order, the following discussion is relevant.

The respondent-assessee is an individual who had declared Long Term Capital Gain on sale of a property bearing no. 699, Dr. Dinshaw Master Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014 during the year under consideration. The facts relevant for the present controversy are that the assessee had acquired the property by inheritance in the financial year 1996-97 though the previous owner had acquired the property prior to 1.4.1981. As a consequence, the assessee adopted the indexation factor of the year 1980-81 for the purpose of computing the indexed cost of acquisition whereas the Assessing Officer allowed the indexation with reference to the indexation factor for financial year 1996-97, when assessee actually inherited/acquired the property. The CIT(A) has upheld the stand of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Manjula Shah (supra). Since the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah (supra) squarely covers the controversy, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A), which is hereby affirmed.

Resultantly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.