Itxa.1642.2012.3.Doc v. Manjula Shah[1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax III} PuneversusDr. Shailesh S. Gujar (HUF) }Appellant}Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED :-NOVEMBER 15, 2014 P.C. :- Heard Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing on behalf of the Revenue, in support of this Appeal. 2)This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenges the Tribunal's order delivered on 21[st] October, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No. 762/PN/2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal was considering the issue of computation of indexed cost of acquisition by applying indexation from 1981. The Assessee had sold the land and the consideration received was offered to tax. The land cost and when it was acquired in the year, 1981 was taken into consideration for arriving at figure of capital gain or its computation. The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not justified in challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who directed the Assessing Officer to compute the indexed cost of acquisition by applying indexation from 1981. What the Assessing Officer thus noticed was a correct position according to the Commissioner. The Revenue filed Appeal before the Tribunal though the issue was fully covered by its Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah[1]. 3)That decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjula J. Shah[2]. There is another decision of this Court and it has also been referred to by the Tribunal in para 4 of the impugned order. 4)Since the issue was answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by authoritative pronouncement of this Court, then, this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The indexed cost of acquisition has to be reckoned with reference to the year in which previous owner acquired the asset and not the year in which the Assessee acquired the same. In these circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal's order can be interfered by us in further Appellate Jurisdiction. The Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 1318 ITR 417 2(2013) 355 IRT 474 (Bom)