PRATIMA H MEHTA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 23, MUMBAI

ITA 1181/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75393 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D DR.S.T.M.PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1181/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA 32, MADHULI, DR. A.B. ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI-. 400 018 VS. DCIT, CC-23, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI. 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :- ABNPM 8226 G APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PARMINDER DATE OF HEARING : 31.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .01.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI DATED 30.12.2011 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1991-92. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSE E AND GENERAL IN NATURE RESPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. 3. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE A CTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN NOT DETERMINING THE INCOME ON THE FINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUN T THEREBY CONFIRMING THE NET ACCRETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR DETERMINATIO N OF THE TOTAL INCOME. AT THE OUT SET, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE ASSESSEES GROUP OF CASES, IN SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA-ITA NO. 8023/MUM/ 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE, HAS DIRECT ED THE LD.CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE REAS ON THAT SIMILAR FACTS AND ISSUE ITA NO. 1181/MUM/2012 \ SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 2 ARE INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER WE DIRECT THE LD.CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE SAME REASONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 4. GROUNDS NO. 4, 5, & 6 RELATE TO THE DETERMINATIO N OF THE TOTAL INCOME BY CONSIDERING NET ACCRETION TO VARIOUS ASSETS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA), THE TRIBU NAL HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) IS DIRECTED COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 3, THE ADDITIONS CONTESTED ON THESE GROUNDS ARE DELETED. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF THE ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO 3 AS AFOREMENTIONED, WE D ELETE THE ADDITIONS CONTESTED VIDE GROUNDS NO. 4, 5, & 6. RESULTANTLY, GROUNDS NO. 4, 5 & 6 ARE ALLOWED . 5. IN GROUND NO. 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTM ENTS AS PER ANNEXURE A-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT RS.4,23,99,472/- ON THE BAS IS OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES ALLEGEDLY SHOWING THE SHARE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED A SIM ILAR ADDITION WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM VAR IOUS COMPANIES BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRADICTOR Y MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER, WE DECIDE TH IS GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. GROUND NO. 7 IS ALLOWED. 6. THE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 8 IS CONSEQUE NT TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN GROUND NO. 7 AS ABOVE AND HENCE GROUND NO 8 IS ALLOWED. 7. IN GROUND NO. 9, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE A CTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT AN IDENTICAL I SSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTI ONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HITESH S. ITA NO. 1181/MUM/2012 \ SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 3 MEHTAS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 A ND 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 9158/MUM/2010. FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS MENTIONED IN PARA 18 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO. 8023/MUM/2011 IN HITESH S. MEHTAS CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. GROUND NO. 9 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. GROUND NO. 10 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DED UCTION OF OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED THE LD.CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THIS WILL NECESSARILY BE ALLOWED BY THE AO AS PER THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THIS O RDER. GROUND NO. 10 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO. 11 RELATES TO THE CHARGEABILITY OF IN TEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT TH E LEVY OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AS PER THE SAID PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HENCE THE NECESSITY OF ADJUDICATING THIS GROUND DOES NOT ARIS E. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 15.01.2014. *SRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 1181/MUM/2012 \ SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 4 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.