KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal for admission on the following suggested questions of law: [i] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the relief to the assessee of Rs. 62,52,500/- by treating the old paintings as personal effect and thereby failed to appreciate that costly paintings are always considered as capital assets and had never excluded from the definition of capital assets for the purpose of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. [ii] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law and also in fact by allowing the assessee, the relief by treating the amount of Rs. 62,52,500/- on account of old paintings, as personal effects and by not appreciating the fact that painting has been specifically excluded from the definition of personal effects w.e.f. 01-04-2008 by the Finance Act, 2007. [iii] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law also in fact in examining the nature of revenue receipt on sale of paintings as alternatively failing under the head Income from other sources."
(2.) We have heard Ms. Jyotsna Roy Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
(3.) It appears that two broad points are involved in this appeal. The first point relates to applicability of definition of Section 2(14) under the heading "personal effect" as it has been brought into the statute book by way of amendment with effect from 1st April, 2008. The subject matter relates to the assessment year of 2008-09, 2007-08. The aforesaid amendment has suggested anywhere any retrospective operation.;