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

ITA 1942/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 194219914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 234B; 147

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - C BENCH. . .. . . .. . , ,, , / !'# !'# !'# !'# , ' ' ' ' BEFORE S/SH. B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & RAJENDR A, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-1998-99 PRATIMA H. MEHTA MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400018 VS DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 PAN: ABNPM8226G ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO.3285/MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-1998-99 DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 VS PRATIMA MEHTA 32 MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400020 PAN: ABNPM8226G ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO.1943 /MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2000-01 PRATIMA H.MEHTA MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400018 VS DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO. 3286/MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2000-01 DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 VS PRATIMA H.MEHTA MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400018 ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO.1944/MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2001-02 PRATIMA H.MEHTA MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400018 VS DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO.3329/MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2001-02 2 ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012& ORS. PRATIMA H. MEHTA DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 VS PRATIMA MEHTA 32 MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400020 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.5500/MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 PRATIMA MEHTA 32 MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400020 VS DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.5228/MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 DCIT CEN CIR 23 MUMBAI- 400020 VS PRATIMA H.MEHTA 32 MADHULI DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400018 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) $*+ $*+ $*+ $*+ , , , , ' ' ' ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH ! - , ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI DR. P. DANIEL $ $ $ $ - -- - +. +. +. +. / DATE OF HEARING : 22-08-2013 /0% - +. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2013 $ $ $ $ , 1961 - -- - 254(1) ' '' ' +1+ +1+ +1+ +1+ '2 '2 '2 '2 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER BENCH CROSS APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS.AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE SE APPEALS ARE COMMON OR ALMOST SIMILAR,SO,FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THE CASES ARE BEING AD JUDICATED UPON BY A SINGLE COMMON ORDER. FOLLOWING IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FIL ED BY THE AO FOR THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS- I.E.1998-99, 2000-01,2001-02.GROUND OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: ITAS NO.3285/MUM/2012AY 1998-99, 3386/MUM/2012 AY 2 000-01 AND 3329/MUM/2012 AY 2001-02 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234A & 234B OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, TO ADD, TO AMEND AND / OR TO ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. 3. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT ON THE GROU ND STATED ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REST ORED. ITA.NO.5228/MUM/2011/-AY-2008-09 FOR THE AY.2008-09 AO HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT LEGAL SANCTITY OF LAW, THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S. 234A, 234B & 234C IS NOT ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL BUT IS MANDAT ORY IN NATURE. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT THE 3 ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012& ORS. PRATIMA H. MEHTA SPECIAL COURT ACT, 1992 HAS NOT RULED OUT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C BEING NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE NOTIFIED PERSONS OR THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LIABILITY OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTI ON OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3.THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, TO ADD, TO AMEND A ND / OR TO ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF N EED BE. 4.THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT ON THE GROUN D STATED ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORE D. ITAS NO.1942/MUM/2012/-AY-1998-99, 1943/MUM/2012/- AY-2000-01. FOR THE AYS.1998-99 AND 2000-01,ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. 2.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 3.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING T HAT NO INCOME FROM ATTACHED ASSETS CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 4.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 55,35,4 97/-. 5.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND/ OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE F OREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR THE AY.2000-01 ALSO-THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST(GROUND NO.4)-F OR THE AY. 2000-01 AMOUNT INVOLVED IS RS. RS.74.77 LACS. ITA NO. 1944/MUM/2012 AY-2001-02 GROUNDS OF APPEAL,FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YE AR 2001-02,READ AS UNDER : 1.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. 2.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 3.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING T HAT NO INCOME FROM ATTACHED ASSETS CAN BE ASSESSED IN T HE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 4.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TREATED AS SUSPENSE ENTRIES AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,92,972/-. 5.LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.83,57,82 1/-. 6.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE FO REGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 5500/MUM/2011 A.Y-2008-09 ASSESSEE HAS FILED BELOW MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEA L FOR THE AY.2008-09: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 250 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT N O INCOME FROM ATTACHED ASSETS CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT GRANTING RELIEF OF LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,88,00,394/- (WRONGLY S TATED IN THE ORDER AS RS. 1,02,64,463/-), TOWARDS I NTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADD TO , ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE FORE GOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ALL THE FOUR AYS. AND SAME READS AS UNDER: 4 ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012& ORS. PRATIMA H. MEHTA 1.THE LD. (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SPECIAL COURT DATED 30.04. 2010 IN MP NO.41 OF 1999, THE ASSETS UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D THE CONSEQUENTIAL INCOME BELONGS TO SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND HENCE THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELL ANT. VIDE HER LETTERS DATED 21.08.2013 ASSESSEE MADE A R EQUEST TO ADMIT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUND.WE FIND THAT SH.HITESH S MEHTA, HUSBAND OF T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS FOR THE AY.1994-95,1995-96 AND 2001-02(ITA/5587TO5589/M UM/2011,5068/MUM/2011 AND 5867-68/ MUM/2011.)ONE OF US,WAS PARTY TO THE ORDER OF HITES H MEHTA,WHERE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS RAISED.IN THAT ORDER ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ADMITTED . FOLLOWING THE SAME,WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND,FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS . 2. DETAILS OF DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS,INCOMES RETUR NED,DATES OF ASSESSMENT,ASSESSED INCOMES, DATES OF ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER : DT.OF FILING OF RETURN RETURNED INCOME (RS.) DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSED INCOME DT. OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) AY1998-99 21.04.2003 (-)35,03,493 26.03.2004 11,901 ,120/- 15.02.2012 AY2000-01 21.04.2003 (-)11,96,066 31.03.2005 82,2 1,280/- 15.02.2012 AY2001-02 21.04.2003 (-)38,07,221 31.03.2005 10 ,591,080/- 15.02.2012 AY2008-09 31.07.2008 40,93,680 01.12.2010 8,72,67,060/- 31.05.2011 ITAS NO. 3285/MUM/2012 AY 1998-99, 3386/MUM/2012 AY 2000-01, 3329/MUM/2012 AY 2001-02 2. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AO.T HE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ALL THE FOUR AYS.IS ABOUT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A,234B AND 234C OF THE ACT.WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR VARIOUS AYS.,AO HAD CHARGED INTEREST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234 OF THE ACT. 2.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS A NOTIFIED ENTITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SPECIAL COURT ACT,THAT NO INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT COULD BE CHARGED I N HER CASE,THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE OPERATED UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SPECIAL C OURT,THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SPECIAL COURT HAD OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE ACT,THAT ALL THE ASSETS WERE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CUSTODIAN, THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE PAID THE ADVANCE TAX UNLES S DIRECTED BY THE SPECIAL COURT,THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER ITS INCOME/ASSETS,THAT SH E COULD NOT BE PENALISED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.ORIENT TRAVEL PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 6868/MUM/2008-AY 2004-05),PALLVI HOLDING,TOPAZ HOLDING AND HARSH ESTATE PVT. LTD. AN D OTHER CASES OF HARSHAD MEHTA GROUP, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE HER FUN DS/ASSETS,THAT SHE COULD NOT BE HELD AS DEFAULTER F OR FAILURE IN PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX.ACCORDINGLY, HE D IRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 234 OF THE ACT. 2.2. BEFOREUS,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THEAO.AUTHORISED REPRESEN -TATIVE(AR)SUBMITTED THAT SAME ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE CASE OF SH.HITESH MEHTA FOR THE AY 2005- 06,THAT SAID GROUND WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF TH E FAA FOR RE-ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL.(ITA/772/ MUM/2000-01-ORDER DATED 26.04.2013). 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR THE AYS. 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08.WE HAVE PASSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 02.08.2013,WHILE 5 ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012& ORS. PRATIMA H. MEHTA DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED AYS.(IT A.NO.7871/MUM/2010 , 7872/MUM/2010 AND 7873/MUM/2010).FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE REMIT BACK TH E ISSUE TO THE FAA FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. APPEALS OF THE AO,FOR AYS.1998-99,2000-01,2001-02 A ND 2008-09 ARE ALLOWED IN PART. ITAS NO.1942/MUM/2012/-AY-1998-99, 1943/MUM/2012/- AY-2000-01. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE(AR)OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 3.THEREFORE, BOTH THE GR OUNDS STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4 .GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT .WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT, AO HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT.AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS A NOTIFIED PARTY AS PER THE SPECIAL CO URT ACT, 1992,THAT THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS BASED ON THE ASSETS SEIZED AND AT TACHED BY THE CUSTODIAN, THAT ASSETS AND DOCUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE WITH THE CUSTODIAN, THAT THE T RUE AND CORRECT PICTURE OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE A.Y UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE DETERM INED IN ABSENCE OF EXCESS TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 4.1 .ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE,HE HELD THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED AND LEGAL,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD ON THE SANCTITY OF T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF COMMUNICA - TION FROM CUSTODIAN,THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DRAWN WERE BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CUSTODI AN THAT THE VERY BASIS OF PREPARATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LED FOUNDATION.FINALLY,HE UPHELD THE ORD ER OF THE AO.HE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH MEHTA, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CIT (A)-40 MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07.HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT,HE HAD KEPT IN MIND T HE DECISION OF CIT(A)-40 MUMBAI DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH MEHTA FOR THE AY 2006-07. 4.2 .BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF HITESH MEHTA,FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07,TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON 26.04.2013 (ITA NO. 7726/MUM/2 010). DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT H BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL,VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26.04.2013, IN THE CASE OF HITESH MEHTA FOR THE AY 2005-06 HAS DEALT THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PERUSAL OF PARA 6.9 AT PAGE NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR NOT ALLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE. SHORN OFF ALL OTHER UNNECESSARY DETAILS, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES IN TOTO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE F ILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE REJECTION/RE LIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DEFENDING HIS CASE.WE ORDER AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THUS,GROUND NO.1 OF THE APP EALS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME,WE SET ASIDE THE IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 .GROUND NO.4 IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPE NSE AMOUNTING TO RS. 55.35 LACS.DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HERSELF ON 2 ND AUGUST 2013 WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FILED FOR T HE AYS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 (ITA NOS. 7871-73/MUM/ 2010/2011). 6 ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012& ORS. PRATIMA H. MEHTA 5.1. WE FIND THAT WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE AO,WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FILED BY HER FOR THE AYS.1005-06 TO 2007-08. FOLLOWING OUR ABOVE REFERRED ORDER,WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS 1998-99 AND 2000-01 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1944/MUM 2012/-AY. 2001-2002 6. EXCEPT FOR THE GROUND NO.4,PERTAINING TO ADDITION O F RS.2.92 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SUSPENSE ENTRIES, REMAINING ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL T O THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6.1. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS NO.1 AND 3,SO ,SAME STAND DISMISSED. 6.2. GROUND NO.2,WHICH IS DEALS WITH REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HAVE BEEN DEALT BY US IN PARAGRAPH NO.OF PRESENT ORDER,WHILE DECIDING THE AP PEALS FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99 AND 2000-01. FOLLOWING THE SAME GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED IN PART I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, 6.3. GROUND NO.5 IS PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS. 83.57 LACS.WHILE DECIDING THE SIMILAR ISSUE FOR THE EARLIER A.YS, WE HAVE RESTORE D BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA (PARAGRAPHS NO.5.AND 5.1.OF OUR ORDER FOR THE A.Y ) .FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND NO. 5 IS ALLOWED IN PART IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.4. GROUND NO.4 IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 2.92 LACS ON A CCOUNT OF SUSPENSE ENTRIES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING,IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT SIMILA R ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE,SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA FOR THEA.Y 2001-02 WH EREIN THE ISSUE OF SUSPENSE ENTRIES WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA, BY THE TRIBUNAL (ITA N O. 5587/MUM/2011 ORDER DATED 12.06.2013). 6.5. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA, S IMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA.FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH (ITA NO.5587/MUM/2011 ORDER DATED 12.06. 2013-PARA-6), WE REMIT BACK THE ISSUE OF SUSPENSE E NTRIES TO THE FILE OF THE FAA. HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE. GROUND NO.4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 STANDS ALLOWED IN PART. ITA NO.5500/MUM 2011/-AY. 2008-2009 7. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE AR OF TH E ASSESSEE.THEREFORE, SAME STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7.1. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 8.88 CRORES. WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER A.YS.,WE HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE FAA.FOLLOWING THE PARAGRAPH NOS.5.AND 5.1.OF OUR ORDER,WE RESTORE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE TO THE FILE OF THE FAA. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. NOW WE WILL LIKE TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS.WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEC IDED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH S.MEHTA AND ASSESSEES OWN CASE. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007- 08 WE HAD DECIDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS ACADEMIC IN NA TURE AND HAD TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE CASE OF SH.HITESH S MEHTA ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DEALT WITH IN FOLLOWING MANNER : 5. ..... HOWEVER, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 7 ITA NO.1942/MUM/2012& ORS. PRATIMA H. MEHTA INVOLVED HERE BEFORE US, WE FOUND THAT THE GROUND IS FULLY ACADEM IC IN NATURE FOR THE REASON THAT IF THE HONBTE SUPREME COURT DECIDES SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED WITHOUT A NY DISPUTE.THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS LAW OF LAND, WHICH HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY EVERY AUT HORITY THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW, NO DIRECTION IS TO BE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE AO IN THIS RESPECT BECAUSE IF THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECIDES THAT ALL THE INCOME BELONGS TO SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA, THEN THE INCOME HAS TO BE ASSES SED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA, NOT IN THE HANDS OF ANY OTHER PERSON.THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO NEED TO ISSUE ANY DIRECTION AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED IN ANY CASE,ACCORDINGLY BY ADMITTING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE YEARS,WE TREAT THE SAME AS ACADEMIC IN NATURE. FOLLOWING THE SAME ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS SAME IS TREATED AS ACADEMIC IN NATURE. AS A RESULT,APPEALS OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE STAN D PARTLY ALLOWED. * 3 $*+ . 4 $*+ - 5 2 3 ' !6 - !+ 78. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST,2013 . '2 - /0% ' 5 9$ 28 1+ ,2013 0 - 1 : SD/- SD/- ( . ; ; ; ; . . B.R.MITTAL ) ( !'# !'# !'# !'# / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ' ' ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 9$ /DATE: 28 TH AUGUST,2013 SK '2 '2 '2 '2 - -- - (+< (+< (+< (+< ='<%+ ='<%+ ='<%+ ='<%+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / > ? , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / > ? 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / <@1 (+$ , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 1 A )<+ )<+ )<+ )<+ (+ (+(+ (+ //TRUE COPY// '2$ / BY ORDER, B / 7 ! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI