The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. Mr.avanish I. Bhagat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.20 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16. v. Mr.Avanish I. Bhagat. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the Appellant.Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/by Mint & Conferers for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. 02nd April, 2013. DATE : PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08 following questions of law have been raised for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim that the cost of indexation is available to the assessee from 1/4/1981 without appreciating the fact that the property was inherited by the assessee and therefore came into his possession partly in the year 1992 on the death of his father and partly in the year 2002 on the death of his mother and therefore the date from which the property held by the assessee for the purpose of indexing the cost would be 5[th ]October,1992 and 20th August, 2002 respectively? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in relying upon the decision of its Special Bench in the case of Manjula J. Shah wherein it was held that the period of holding of the previous owner is to be considered, if the assessee has acquired the property by any mode of acquisition as mentioned in Section 49(1).The decision of the Tribunal was not accepted by the department and the matter is sub-judice? 2)The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent assessee by following the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Manjula J. Shah reported in (2012) 204 Taxman 691. Counsel for the revenue does not dispute the applicability of the above case to the present facts but merely states that the revenue has filed an appeal to the Apex Court against the decision of this Court in the matter of Manjula J. Shah (supra). However, mere filing of an appeal to the Apex Court is not reason enough not to follow the decision of this Court. Therefore, as the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the matter of Manjula J. Shah (supra), we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 3)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)