The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 22, New Mumbai v. Late Prannath Ramjidas Katyal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.322 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 22, New Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Late Prannath Ramjidas Katyal ..Respondent. Mr.Abhay Ahuja with Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 5[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-2008, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that indexation of the cost of acquisition of the assets sold, for the purpose of computing the taxable long term capital gains, should be done from 1[st] April 1981 despite the fact that the assessee held the asset only from Financial Year 2003-04, which was the year in which he inherited the assets from the previous owner ?of acquisition of the assets sold, for the purpose of computing the taxable long term capital gains, should be done from 1[st] April 1981 despite the fact that the assessee held the asset only from Financial Year 2003-04, which was the year in which he inherited the assets from the previous owner ? b)Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in overlooking the provisions of Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act, which clearly provide that indexation of the cost of acquisition of the assets sold should be done with reference to the first year in which the assets was held by the assessee or with reference to 1[st] April 1981, whichever is later ?of Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act, which clearly provide that indexation of the cost of acquisition of the assets sold should be done with reference to the first year in which the assets was held by the assessee or with reference to 1[st] April 1981, whichever is later ? c)Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that indexation of the cost of acquisition in the instant case should be done from 1[st] April 1981 despite the evidence available on record which shows that the first year in which the assessee held the assets was F.Y 2003-04 ?”the cost of acquisition in the instant case should be done from 1[st] April 1981 despite the evidence available on record which shows that the first year in which the assessee held the assets was F.Y 2003-04 ?” 2.The Tribunal by the impugned order has followed its decision in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Manjula Shah. The Revenue carried the order of the Tribunal in the matter of Manjula Shah to this Court. This Court by an order dated 11[th] October 2011 dismissed the appeal in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Manjula Shah reported in (2012) 204 Taxman 691 (Bombay). 3.In view of the above, no question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)