M/s. PRIVI ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT - 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1965/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 196519914 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M R KUBAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER G DALAL
• Section: 80HHC; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R V EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A NO: 1965/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) PRIVI ORGANICS LIMITED, MUMBAI APPELLANT (PAN: AAACP4717A) VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3) RESPOND ENT MUMBAI ASSESSEE BY: MR SAMEER G DALAL REVENUE BY: MR M R KUBAL DATE OF HEARING: 10 TH AUGUST 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 TH AUGUST 2011 O R D E R R V EASWAR, PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF ` 10,92,600/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING IT WAS POINT ED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BY AN ORDER DATED 24 TH NOVEMBER 2010 IN ITA NO:3594/MUM/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, T HE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R BEING PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT ITA NO: 1965/MUM/2007 2 (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM). SINCE THE FACTS ARE THE S AME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THE LINES INDICATED BY THE JUDGMENT, AFTER GIVING ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF ` 27,61,609/- MADE UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 -02 BY ORDER DATED 31 ST AUGUST 2010 IN ITA NO: 4647/MUM/2006. IN THE SAID ORDER THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THE LINES OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MA HALAXMI GLASS WORKS PVT. LTD. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (BOM). SINCE TH E FACTS ARE IDENTICAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE RESTORE THE ISSU E TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS. 4. THE THIRD AND LAST GROUND RELATES TO THE TREATME NT GIVEN TO DEPB FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING IT WA S POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO AROSE I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND BY ORDER DATED 24 TH NOVEMBER 2010 (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. KALPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS (2010) 328 ITR 451(BO M). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL WE ITA NO: 1965/MUM/2007 3 DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREBY C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST 2011. SD/- SD/- (B RAMAKOTAIAH) (R V EASWAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDE NT MUMBAI, DATED 10 TH AUGUST 2011 SALDANHA COPY TO: 1. PRIVI ORGANICS LTD. 205, PRINCESS STREET, MUMBAI 400 002 2. ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI 3. CIT-4, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A)-XIV. MUMBAI 5. DR C BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI