DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1) , CHENNAI V. Mohamed Idris Bros Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1579/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6129 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASISH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: M RAZZACK

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 1579/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2013 - 14 & C.O. NO. 119/MDS/2017 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1579/MDS/2017] THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. MOHAMED IDRIS BROS PVT. LTD., NO. 5, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI - 01. [PAN:AA ACM5231G ] ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASISH TRIPATHI , JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. RAZZACK , C.A. / DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 . 0 9 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 21 .09 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH IS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 8 , CHENNAI DATED 21 . 04 .201 7 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13 - 1 4 . THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF I.T.A. NO. 1579/M/17 & C.O. NO . 119 /M/ 1 7 2 .1,20,45,263/ - MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF TEXTILES AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01.10.2013 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF .64,87, 160/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS EXCEEDING .20,000/ - ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND IN MOST OF THE OCCASIONS THE PAYMENTS BEING A LITTLE SHORT OF .20,000/ - , VIZ., .19,000/ - , .18 ,000/ - , .15,000/ - , THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THIS REGARD ARE LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3A) OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ON THE SAME FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE I TAT IN THE APPELLANT S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11, THE DISALLOWANCE OF .1,20,45,263/ - U/S. 40A(3A) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 4. THE LD. DR HAS MAINLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH I.T.A. NO. 1579/M/17 & C.O. NO . 119 /M/ 1 7 3 COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING. THUS, THE LD. DR HAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND RESTORED THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, BY FILING COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12, WHEREIN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, HAS BEEN FOLLOWED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). FU RTHER, IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IN I.T.A. NO. 104/MDS/2014 WHILE DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3A) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 1 2 ALSO, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 908/MDS/2016 & CO NO. 69/MDS/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.10.2016. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION, IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS C ROSS OBJECTION. SINCE WE HAVE I.T.A. NO. 1579/M/17 & C.O. NO . 119 /M/ 1 7 4 DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON MERITS, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 21 ST SEPTEMBER , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 21 . 0 9 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.