Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, dated 27.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.
No one attended for the assessee inspite of issue of notice by RPAD. Therefore, we heard Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.
Shri Shiva Srinivas, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is computation of capital gain. According to the Ld. D.R., while computing the capital gain, the Assessing Officer refused to index from the date on which the original owner acquired the asset. According to the Ld. D.R., the property came to the assessee by way of settlement deed, therefore, the cost of acquisition has to be ascertained on the date on which the property came to the assessee by way of settlement deed. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by placing his reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (2013) 355 ITR 474. According to the Ld. D.R., the cost indexation has to be made under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
We have considered the submission of Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the assessee received the property by way of settlement deed, otherwise it is known as gift. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Manjula J. Shah (supra), the indexation has to be made from the date on which the original owner acquired the property. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) by following the judgment of Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (supra) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the inflation indexation from the date on which the original owner acquired the property. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.