IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 244/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT                       ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 HARINDER KAUR BHUTALIA       ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
              17.04.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 
 1961 (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 13th October, 2011 passed 
 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the tribunal) in the 
 case of Harinder Butalia.  The appeal pertains to the assessment year 
 2007-08.  In the impugned order, the tribunal had held that the assessee 
 would be entitled to benefit of indexed cost of acquisition under Section 
 48 of the Act. 
 . 
 2. The facts are not in dispute.  The assessee had inherited ownership 
 rights in premises No.22, Friends Colony (West), Mathura Road, New Delhi 
 in 1993 after death of his father Shiv Charan Singh.  The father had 
 acquired the property in 1981-82.  Subsequently, family members of Shiv 
 CharanSingh entered into an oral memorandum of family settlement dated 
 2nd June, 2006 and the property was sold in the previous year relevant to 
 the assessment year 2007-08. 
 . 
 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the assessee is not entitled 
 to benefit of indexed cost of acquisition for the period prior to 2nd 
 June, 2006 as the assessee in personal/individual capacity acquired the 
 right in the property only when the family settlement was executed. 
 . 
 4. Similar controversy/issue was examined by this Court in ITA 
 No.116/2011 titled Arun Shungloo Trust Vs. CIT decided on 13th February, 
 2012.  After examining the relevant provisions, it has been held that in 
 such cases, an assessee is entitled to benefit of indexed cost of 
 acquisition from the date property was acquired by the predecessor-in- 
 interest (previous owner) under Section 49 of the Act. 
 . 
 5. In view of the said decision, no substantial question of law of 
 arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.  No costs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 APRIL 17, 2012 
 . 
 NA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 35 
 .