Itxa/1095/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii Pune v. Jeevan M. Gorade

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune..Appellant.V/s.Jeevan M. Gorade..Respondent. Mr. Vipul Vajapaye and Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 5[th] MARCH, 2013. Heard. 2In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2005- 06 following questions have been raised for our consideration:- (a)Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in holding that for the purpose of determining the indexed cost of acquisition in respect of an asset acquired under a gift or will, the cost inflation index has to be worked out by taking the date of acquisition by the previous owner? (b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in failing to appreciate that as per clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 48, the Cost Inflation Index to be taken as the denominator has to be necessarily the index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee and not by any previous owner? (c) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in failing to appreciate that the Legislature in its wisdom has clearly distinguished the assignment of cost to the asset transferred under Section 49(1)(ii) and the benefit of indexation to be given on such cost (Explanation (iii) to Section 48) and, in the circumstances, the benefit of indexation has to be worked out only as per Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act? (d) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in failing to appreciate that under the scheme of the Act, the benefit of indexation can be given only to the owner of the asset, and that too from the date he becomes the owner upto the date he ceases to be the owner? (e) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in failing to appreciate that by no means the intention of the Legislature was to grant the benefit of indexation to an assessee for the period when he was not the owner of the asset since the very purpose of giving the benefit of indexation is to neutralize the effect of inflation in the hands of the assesee-cum-owner? 3Since the issue arising in the present Appeal is covered in favour of the Respondent-Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v/s. Manjula J. Shah reported in 240 CTR 270, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)