IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
      ITA 543/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT                 ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 HARJEET SIKAND       ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: None. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      26.09.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the ITAT dated 
 6.2.2012 in ITA No.5430/del/2011.  The question of law sought to be urged 
 is whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of the sum of 
 Rs.67,13,490/- from the assessment made by the AO on account of long term 
 capital gains. 
 . 
 The facts of the case are that the assessee succeeded to the 
 property in question after the demise of her parents who had drawn 
 separate wills.  She was legatee to the extent of 1/3rd of the estate of 
 her father and 1/6th of the estate of her mother.  She sold the property 
 and the proceeds were offered as long term capital gain claiming benefit 
 of indexed cost of acquisition computed with reference to the year in 
 which the previous owner acquired the property. The AO refused to give 
 the benefit of indexed cost, holding that the indexed cost will be 
 computed only with reference to the year in which the assessee became the 
 owner of the property.  The assessee?s appeal was accepted; the Appellate 
 Commissioner relied upon the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in 
 DCIT v. Manjula J. Shah, (2010) 35 SOT 105.  The Tribunal followed that 
 decision as well as the subsequent decision of the Delhi Bench in Aftab 
 Shah v. ACIT. 
 . 
 This Court notices that view of the Special Bench was approved and 
 endorsed in a previous judgment of this Court in Arun Shungloo Trust v. 
 CIT (ITA No.116/2011, decided on 13.02.2012) and subsequent judgments of 
 the Court.  The order of the Special Bench (supra) was itself affirmed by 
 the Bombay High Court in (2009) 318 ITR 417. 
 . 
 In these circumstances, there is no ground to take a different view 
 in this case.  No substantial question of law, therefore, arises. 
 . 
 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 
 . 
 /vks/ 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 3 
 .