POPULAR INDUSTRY, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1846/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5162 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. R. C. SHARMA , AM & HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1846 /MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) POPULAR INDUSTRY 135, 1 ST FLOOR, SH AHIDBHAGAT SINGH COLONY, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI(EAST) MUMBAI - 400 059 / VS. DCIT CIR 20(2) MUMBAI PIN - ./ ./ PAN NO. A AJFP5058J ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI ABI RAMA KAR T H I KIYEN , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 25 .09 .2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10.2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE P RESENT APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) 24 , MUMBAI DATED 21.12 .16 F OR AY 20 1 2 - 13 . 2 I.T.A. NO. 1846 /MUM/201 7 POPULAR INDUSTRY . 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SEVERAL CALLS AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. ON THE OTHER HAND L D. DR IS PRESENT IN THE COURT AND IS READY WITH ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX - PA RTE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE L D. DR AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 3,61,89,050 / - . SUBSEQUENTLY AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE SAME AND ASSESSMENT ORDE R U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 WAS PASSED THEREBY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,71,974/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO , ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE . 3 I.T.A. NO. 1846 /MUM/201 7 POPULAR INDUSTRY . NOW BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 4 . ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTER RELATED AND INTER CONNECTED AND RELATES TO CHA LLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF I.T. ACT 1961, THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABO VE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO. 3 TO 5 OF ITS DETAILED ORDER AND A FTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THA T THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF I.T. ACT 1961 HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT, WHEREIN LD. CIT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 HAS CATEGORICALLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAS LIMITED JURISDICTION TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT AS 4 I.T.A. NO. 1846 /MUM/201 7 POPULAR INDUSTRY . PER THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT. LD. CIT HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS ADMITTEDLY EVIDENT THAT THE LIABILITY /EXPENDI TURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9 LAKHS WAS NOT GENUINE AND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH 9 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT. SINCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 WAS AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT, THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD . CIT U/S 263 IN APPEAL AN D HAS ONLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S 263 OF I.T. ACT, WHICH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS SO GIVEN BY LD. CIT. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ILLEGALITY IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT. EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD . CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO 5 I.T.A. NO. 1846 /MUM/201 7 POPULAR INDUSTRY . REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 6 . IN THE NET RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD OCT , 2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( R. C. SHARMA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 03 . 10 .201 8 SR.PS . DHANANJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBA I