Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Ito, Chennai vs Nalini Mahadevan Kumaran, Chennai on 23 August, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य केसम#
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1421/Mds/2017
नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year : 2013-14
Smt. Nalini Mahadevan Kumaran,
The Income Tax Officer, v. Old No.68B, New No.46,
International Taxation Ward 1(2), First Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 020.
PAN : CQHPK 0155 K
(अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent)
अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
+,यथ* क- ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Raghunathan, CA
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1424/Mds/2017
नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year : 2013-14
Shri Sunil Philip Stephen,
The Income Tax Officer, No.9-A, Arulagam, Biship Wallers
International Taxation Ward 2(2), v. Avenue East, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 004.
PAN : AACPS 3962 P
(अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent)
अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
+,यथ* क- ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Pratapkaran Paul, CA
2 I.T.A. No.1421/Mds/17
I.T.A. No.1424/Mds/17
I.T.A. No.1425/Mds/17
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1425/Mds/2017
नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Year : 2014-15
Shri Bhaskaran Sunny John George,
The Income Tax Officer, 1-D, Ashreya, 4th Seaward Road,
International Taxation Ward 2(2), v. Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 041.
PAN : DKXPS 9698 C
(अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent)
अपीलाथ* क- ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
+,यथ* क- ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Pratapkaran Paul, CA
सन
ु वाई क- तार ख/Date of Hearing : 17.08.2017
घोषणा क- तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2017
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
All the three appeals of the independent assessees are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai. Since common issue arises for consideration in all the three appeals, we heard these three appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.
2. The only issue arises for consideration is computation of capital gain.
3 I.T.A. No.1421/Mds/17
I.T.A. No.1424/Mds/17 I.T.A. No.1425/Mds/17
3. Shri N. Madhavan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that all the three assessees inherited property from the respective parents. The Assessing Officer for the purpose of capital gain, computed the index cost of acquisition from the year in which the respective assessee inherited the property. According to the Ld. D.R., under the provisions of Income-tax Act, index cost of acquisition has to be computed from the year in which the assessee became the owner.
4. On the contrary, the Ld. representatives for the assessees, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (2013) 355 ITR 474 held that for the purpose of computing capital gain, index cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to original owner who acquired the property and not the legal heir who inherited the property. According to the Ld. representatives, the property was first held by respective parents on acquisition. On their death, the assessee inherited the property by operation of law. Therefore, according to the Ld. representatives, by rightly placing reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court and other decisions of the Tribunal, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to 4 I.T.A. No.1421/Mds/17 I.T.A. No.1424/Mds/17 I.T.A. No.1425/Mds/17 compute the index cost of acquisition from the year in which the original owner acquired the property.
5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that all the three assessees inherited the property from their respective parents by operation of law. The question arises for consideration is when the property was inherited by respective persons from the parents by operation of law, whether the index cost of acquisition has to be computed in the year in which they inherited the property or the year in which the original owner held the property. This issue was decided by Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (supra). The Bombay High Court categorically held that the year in which the original owner acquired the property has to be taken for index cost of acquisition. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) has placed his reliance on this judgment of Bombay High Court. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
6. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
5 I.T.A. No.1421/Mds/17
I.T.A. No.1424/Mds/17 I.T.A. No.1425/Mds/17 Order pronounced on 23rd August, 2017 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(एस जयरामन) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(S. Jayaraman) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
rd
4दनांक/Dated, the 23 August, 2017.
Kri.
आदे श क- + त5ल6प अ7े6षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant
2. +,यथ*/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु8त (अपील)/CIT(A)-16
4. The CIT(IT), Chennai
5. 6वभागीय + त न ध/DR
6. गाड& फाईल/GF.