Ii.whether The Hon’ble Tribunal Is Justified Inholding That The Subject Capital Gains As A Longterm Capital Gain And Consequently Directing Theassessing Officer v. The Appeal Is Accordingly Dismissed. No Order As To Costs

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.128 OF 2013 DATED:27.6.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-VIT Towers, A.C. GuardsHyderabad … Appellant And D. Manohar Singh3-9-121, West MarredpallySecunderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A NO.128 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal dt.16.11.2011, in relation to assessmentyear 2006-2007, on the following suggested questions of law. I.“In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in upholding the finding of the learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that thegain from the transfer of the asset by therespondent – assessee on the same day ofconversion of leasehold property as free-hold, is aLong Term Capital Gain, when the AssessingOfficer treated the same as Short Term CapitalGain by applying Section 50C of the Income TaxAct? II.Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified inholding that the subject Capital Gains as a LongTerm Capital Gain and consequently directing theAssessing Officer to value the property in questionas on 01.04.1981 on the basis of comparablecases?” We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant andperused the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears, the learned Tribunal has applied the law by correctlyunderstanding the transaction took place in the case on hand. Theproperty was rightly treated to be a long-term capital gain, though itwas originally a leasehold property and on the date of sale it was afreehold property. The issue raised has been decided by the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Narasimha Rao(HUF) and another, in ITA No.1240/Hyd/07, dt.28.10.1998. Thelearned Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in the case of K.Mohan Prasad, in ITA No.199/Hyd/2007, dt.24.10.2008, which wasrendered following the judgment of the Supreme Court in KrishnaMurthy (AR) v. C.I.T.[[1]]. The Supreme Court in Krishna Murthy case(supra) distinguished the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in thecase of Dr. V.V. Modi[[2]], which was cited by the learned counsel forthe appellant herein and before the Tribunal also. In view of theaforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal hasfollowed correct proposition of law, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case. We do not find any reason to interfere withthe impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 27.6.2013 bnr [2]218 ITR 1