IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1693/Mds/2016 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri M.Prakash, v. Income Tax Officer, F-4, Jain Anahitha, International Taxation 2(1), No.9, 1st Cross Street, Chennai. Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. PAN : AYGPP9316G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate Respondent by : Shri A.V.Shreekanth, JCIT Date of Hearing : 30.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) -16, Chennai dated 11.05.2016 and pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. No.1693/Mds/2016 2. only issue arises for consideration is determination of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 for purpose of computing capital gain. Shri A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for assessee submitted that assessee acquired property by way of settlement deed executed by his grandmother on 14.02.2003. This property was originally purchased by assessee s grand mother Mrs.Kamalammal on 23.03.1960. Therefore, assessee claimed before assessing officer to determine cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. However, assessing officer rejected claim of assessee on ground that assessee acquired property only on 14.02.2003 by means of settlement deed from his grandmother. Therefore, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed from assessment year 2003-04. Placing reliance on judgment of Bombay High Court in case of CIT-12 Vs. Manjula J.Shah reported in (2012) 204 Taxman 691, learned counsel for assessee submitted that on identical situation, Bombay High Court found that cost of indexation has to be determined with effect from 01.04.1981. In fact, this Tribunal in S.Krishnan Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) reported in (2015) 44 CCH 0132 ChenTrib had occasion to consider identical situation. This Tribunal placing reliance on judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Manjula J.Shah found that indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with effect from 01.04.1981. Therefore, according to learned counsel for assessee, CIT(A) is not justified in confirming order of Assessing Officer. 3 I.T.A. No.1693/Mds/2016 3. On contrary, Shri A.V.Shreekanth, learned department representative submitted that assessee acquired property from his grandmother only by means of settlement deed dated 14.02.2003. Therefore, assessee becomes owner of property only from 14.02.2003. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly found that indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed only from date on which assessee acquired property. 4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and also perused material available on record. only issue arises for consideration, rightly pointed out by learned department representative is fair market value as on 01.04.1981 for purpose of computing capital gain. It is not in dispute that assessee acquired property by means of settlement deed executed by his grandmother on 14.02.2003. revenue claims that assessee becomes owner of property only from 14.02.2003. Therefore, cost of indexation has to be computed only from financial year 2002-03 relevant to assessment year 2003-04. From order of CIT(A), it appears that assessee brought to notice of CIT(A) decision of this Bench of Tribunal in case of Mr.Ramalingam Balaji Vs.DCIT in ITA No.86/Mds/2016 dated 24.03.2016. CIT(A) after referring to decision of this Tribunal observed that he differ from decision of this Tribunal. It is pertinent to point out that CIT(A) is authority lower in rank to that of this Tribunal. When this Tribunal found that indexation has to be made with effect from 01.04.1981, CIT(A) cannot differ from order of this Tribunal. If revenue has any grievance over 4 I.T.A. No.1693/Mds/2016 order of this Tribunal, it is open to them to take up matter before High Court in manner known to law. If CIT(A) is allowed to differ from decision of Tribunal, then, there is no meaning in having appellate tribunal under scheme of Income Tax Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that when this Tribunal found that cost of acquisition has to be determined as on 01.04.1981, when property was inherited from previous owner either by succession or by means of settlement deed, CIT(A) is expected to follow order of this Tribunal. Unfortunately, CIT(A) has not done so and he simply observed that he differ from decision of this Tribunal. Such attitude on part of CIT(A) is not appreciable. 5. This Tribunal hope and trust that in future, CIT(A) will be little more careful in making observation against order of this Tribunal. Whenever there is order of this Tribunal on identical set of facts, unless there is contrary judgment of any of High Courts or Apex Court, CIT(A) is expected to follow same. 6. Now coming to issue under consideration, admittedly, property was acquired by assessee from his grandmother by means of settlement deed. On identical situation, this Tribunal, placing reliance on judgment of Bombay High Court in Manjula J.Shah (supra) found that indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with effect from 01.04.1981. Since issue is identical as in Manjula J.Shah (supra), this Tribunal is of considered opinion that judgment of Mumbai High Court is squarely applicable to these 5 I.T.A. No.1693/Mds/2016 facts. Therefore, by following judgment of Mumbai High Court in Manjula J.Shah (supra) and for reasons stated therein, orders of lower authorities are set aside and assessing officer is directed to compute indexed cost of acquisition with effect from 01.04.1981. 7. In result, appeal of assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, Dated, 23rd September, 2016. sp. Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. /CIT, 5. DR 6. GF. M.Prakash v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation 2(1), Chennai