Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt Mina Deogun on 2 September, 2008
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
1
ITA No. 438 of 2008
G.A.No.1893 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax)
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-X Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
SMT MINA DEOGUN Defendant/Respondent
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SAKHA DATTA Date : 2nd September, 2008.
The Court : The Court : After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the grounds stated in the petition. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. G.A.No. 1893 of 2008 is thus disposed of.
We now take up the application for admission of the appeal. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the appeal is admitted and the following substantial question of law is referred for adjudication :
" (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in adopting the value of share of the assessee in the property at 47, Archbishop Makarios Marg (Golf Links), New Delhi as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.18,40,244/- in accordance with the report of the Registered Valuer instead of Rs.15,02,907/- being the mean value between the valuations made by the Registered Approved Valuer and Rs.11,65,570/- by the District Valuation Officer, as determined by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ?"
"(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in applying the cost inflation 2 index with effect from 1.4.1981 instead of the year 1999-2000, in which the assessee inherited the property, contrary to the provisions of Explanation (iii) to section-48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the effect that it would be applied with effect from the first year in which the assessee held the property, or 1.4.1981, whichever is later, on the ground that a literal interpretation of the provisions was to be discarded?"
"(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the rent from the property at Panchasheel Park, New Delhi, was to be assessed under the head "Income from House Property" and not as "Income from Other Sources", though the land stood in the name of the assessee's husband?"
Let paper book be prepared by the appellant and be served upon the respondent within four weeks after vacation.
Let the appeal appear six weeks thereafter. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) (PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J.) km