SHREE AHUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO WD, 9 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2699/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3678 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHARM VEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: REEPAL TRALSHAWALA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2699/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ) ITA NO. 5161/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ) SHREE AHUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. A/201, RAJPIPLA, LINKING ROAD, OPP. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI- 400054. PAN: AAECS5561R VS. ITO-9(3)(1) R.NO. 227, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 4987/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ) DY. CIT, CC-6(2) R.NO. 1903, 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. VS. SHREE AHUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. A/1, RAJPIPLA, LINKING ROAD, OPP. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI- 400054. PAN: AAECS5561R APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI REEPAL TRALSHAWALA (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHARM VEER SINGH (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 01.11.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS SET OF THREE APPEALS OUT OF WHICH TWO CROSS AP PEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI DATED 16.05.2016 & 16.02.2016 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CE RTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS WERE ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 2 CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY A CONSOLIDATED OR DER TO AVOID THE CONFLICTING DECISION. IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES - RS .9,59,300/- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.9,59, 300/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND HENCE, CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME IS UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EXPENSE S INCURRED WERE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT DONATION AND THE PAYMENT TO MCA FOR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP WAS INCURRED TOWARDS BUSINESS PROSPECTS AND GROWTH OF THE COMPANY AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTI RE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.9,59,300/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE DELET ED. B. DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE INTEREST U/S.40A(2)(A) - RS.4,68,73,515/- 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.4,68,73,515/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE ENTIRE FUNDS BORROWED FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS WERE UTILIZED WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF PART INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.4,68,73,515/- IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND L IABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS PER THE GROUP POLICY, THE TWO SISTER CONCERNS I.E. M/S. AHUJA PROPERTIES & M/S. A HUJA PROPERTIES & ASSOCIATES SHALL BORROW FUNDS FROM OUTSIDERS AND LEND THE SAME TO ANY OF THE GROUP CONCERN REQUIRING FOR THEIR BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY THE IN TEREST WAS CHARGED TO ALL THE GROUP CONCERNS AVAILING FUNDS FROM THESE TWO SISTER CONCERNS AT HANDS OF THE SISTER CONCERNS WAS ALSO HIGH AND HENCE, THE RATE O F INTEREST CHARGED BY THE SISTER CONCERNS COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE EXCESSIVE AND THUS , THE PART DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT APART FROM INTEREST COST AND BROKERAGE COST [ABOUT 3% AND NOT 1.50% OR 0.50% AS OBSERVED BY CIT(A)], THERE WERE HARDLY ANY EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE LENDE R SISTER CONCERNS AND EXCEPT FOR NET PROFIT EARNED AND OFFERED FOR TAX AND THERE FORE, NO PART OF INTEREST PAID TO ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 3 SISTER CONCERNS HAD ACTUALLY BENEFITED THE SISTER C ONCERNS IN ANY MANNER SO AS TO APPLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT AN D THAT THE MAJORITY AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO SISTER CONCERNS HAS IN TURN BEEN U TILIZED BY THE SISTER CONCERNS TO MAKE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE TO OUTSIDE T HIRD PARTIES FROM WHOM THE FUNDS WERE BORROWED AND HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY EXCESSIVE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO SISTER CONCERNS AND THE DISA LLOWANCE THEREFORE MADE AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ALL THE GROUP CONCERNS WERE FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND PAYING TAXES AT THE MAX IMUM MARGINAL RATES AND IN FACT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, MAJORITY OF INTEREST EXPENSES WERE CAPITALIZED AS WIP [OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,68,73,515/-, RS.4,28,56,367/- IS DISALLOWED FROM WIP AND ONLY BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4 0,17,148/- DISALLOWANCE FROM PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT] AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO BENEFIT DERIVED BY PAYING INTEREST AT HIGH RATES AND THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE O F PART INTEREST IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE L IMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS. FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2011 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 26,31,392/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE A D ISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 9,59,300/- AND D ISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF RS. 5 ,95,43,939/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BOTH THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWA NCE WERE CONFIRMED. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 4 4. GROUND NO.A RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF B USINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT A SSESSEE IS INCURRED THESE EXPENSES FOR PROMOTION OF ITS BUSINESS. THE A SSESSEE INCURRED MAJOR EXPENSES WHICH CONSIST OF CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP OF M UMBAI CRICKET ASSOCIATION, ON SOCIAL FUNCTIONS AND DONATION. THE AO HAS RECORDED THE EXPENSES IN PARA OF HIS ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING MANN ER: DATE NAME OF RECIPIENT AMOUNT 15.06.2010 MUMBAI CRICKET ASSOCIATION 5,45,200/- 07.07.2010 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF INDIA FOR DISTRIBUTION OF NOTES TO POOR STUDENTS 5000/- 19.07.2010 UNITED ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WELFARE (DAHIHANDI) 1,10,000/- 31.07.2010 ISCON 31,000/- 19.08.2010 S.V.S. JAIN SANGH LOKHANDWALA 5,100/- 30.08.2010 VISHNU NARAYAN MAHILAADHARMANCH 10,000/- 11.10.2010 TUKARAM MOKAL (DONATION) 75,500/ - 11.10.201 0 SURENDRA PATHARE (DONATION) 75,500/ - 01.02.2011 UNNATI SEVA SANGH 1,02,000/- 9,59,300/- 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSE S WERE INCURRED FOR ADVERTISING OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MAJOR EXPENSES WHICH CONSIST OF MEMBERSHIP TO MUMBAI CRICKET ASSOCIATION WERE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP TO HAVE A MEETING W ITH VARIOUS CLIENTS. ALL THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF B USINESS AND REST OF THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR DONATIONS. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE EXPENSES TO THE LO WER AUTHORITIES THAT PAYMENT MADE TO UNNATI SEVA SANGH AND UNITED ASSOCI ATION FOR SOCIAL EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WELFARE (DAHIHANDI), IT WAS IN CURRED FOR PUTTING HOARDING FOR ADVERTISING OF ITS UPCOMING PROJECTS. FOR THE EXPENSES ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 5 INCURRED ON MEMBER SHIP OF CLUB, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE O F OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT (195 ITR 682 BOM). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DURING THE ASSESSMENT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPE NSES OF RS. 9,59,300/- WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN PAR A-4 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENSES. TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF RECEIPT OF RS. 545/- PAID TO MUMBAI CRI CKET ASSOCIATION. FOR EXPENSES INCURRED FOR DAHIHANDI, THE ASSESSEE STATE D THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR PUTTING HOARD ING OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON PUTTING HOARDING OF UNNATI SEVA SANGH & UNITED ASSOCIATION, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE INCURRE D EXPENSES ON MAKING HOARDING FOR UPCOMING PROJECTS AND REST OF THE AMOU NT WHICH WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON SIMILAR LINE. WE HAV E NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CORPORATE ENTITY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D TO HAVE MADE THE ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 6 EXPENSES BY PUTTING HOARDING FOR ITS ADVERTISEMENT, RS. 5000/- WERE INCURRED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF NOTE BOOKS TO THE POOR STUDENT, RS. 1,10,000/- ON SOCIAL EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WELFARE IN DAHIHAND I FUNCTION. THE OTHER MAJOR EXPENSES CONSIST OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON HOAR DING AND PAYMENT MADE TO UNNATI SEVA SANGH AND UNITED ASSOCIATION OF RS. 1,02,222/- BESIDES THE MEMBERSHIP EXPENSES OF RS. 5,45,200/-. REST OF THE AMOUNT ARE VERY MEAGRE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION EITHER IN THE FORM OF DISTRIBUTION OF NOTEBOOK TO POOR STUDENT, DONATION TO ISCON, JVS JAIN SANGH LOKHANDWALA, VISHNU NARAYAN MAHILAADHARMANCH, TUKARAM MOKAL NAD SURENDRA PATHARE. 8. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN OTIS ELEVA TOR (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES FOR PROMOTION O F CLUB FEES WITH A VIEW TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO IMPROVE ITS RELATION AND PROSPECTS, THE PAYMENT MUST BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. SI MILARLY THE OTHER EXPENSES, GENUINENESS OF WHICH WERE NOT DISPUTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH MAINLY CONSIST OF EITHER DONATION TO VARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, DISTRIBUTION OF NOTEBOOK TO POOR STU DENT AND EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE FESTIVAL SEASON FOR ERECTING HO ARDING ARE ALSO ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND EXP ENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW ALL THE EXPENSES AND D ELETE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.A OF THE APPE AL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 7 9. GROUND NO. B RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UN DER SECTION 40A(2)(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSE E BORROWED LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDIN G PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO BORROWED FUNDS FROM BANK, WHICH IS SECURED LOA N AND THAT ALL SECURITIES COULD BE GIVEN FOR THE BANK BORROWINGS E XHAUSTED. 10. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ON SAME SET OF FACT IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN PUSPANJALI REALTORS PVT. L TD. IN ITA NO. 483/MUM/2016 DATED 17.01.2018, WHEREIN THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TREATED SIMILAR RATE INTEREST PAID BY THAT ASSESSEE AS UNRE ASONABLE, HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE INTEREST ADDITION, ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS AFFIRMED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FINALLY SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, T HE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. INDO-SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) P. LTD. (310 I TR 306), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE REVENUE WAS N OT IN A POSITION TO POINT OUT HOW THE ASSESSEE EVADED PAYMENT OF TAX BY ALLEGED PAYMENT TO HIGHER COMMISSION TO ITS SISTER CONCERN, SISTER CON CERN WAS ALSO PAID TAX AT HIGHER RATE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS COMMISSION TO SISTER CONCERN WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTL Y SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY EVASION OF PAYMENT OF TAX. ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 8 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PAID THE INTEREST TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AT UNREASONABLE RATE . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REAS ONABLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY FURTHER RELIEF. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE FU RTHER NOTED THAT IN CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN IN PUSPANJALI REALTORS PVT. LTD (SUPRA)., THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT SIMILAR RATE OF INTEREST, HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED. ON FURTHER APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) WAS AFFIRMED VIDE ORDER DA TED 17.01.2018 (PUSPANJALI REALTORS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 483/MUM/2 016). WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED UNSECUR ED LOAN FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COP Y OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF M/S AHUJA PROPERTIES AND ASSOCIATES (PAN NO. AAH FA4921B), WHEREIN THE INTEREST INCOME FROM ASSESSEE-COMPANY F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 20.03.2014. 13. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E AND THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON HIGHER ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 9 SIDE AS COMPARED TO THE MARKET RATE FOR GETTING THE UNSECURED LOAN FOR SUCH BUSINESS AS UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE. NOR THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS RECORDED THAT ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT TO ITS SIST ER CONCERN FOR EVASION OF TAX. MOREOVER, WE HAVE NOTED THAT ON SIMILAR RAT E OF INTEREST, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN PU SPANJALI REALTORS (SUPRA) AND ON APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AND RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN PUSPANJALI REALTOR S PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 483/MUM/2016, (SUPRA) THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 5161/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 BY ASSESSEE 19. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDEN TICAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. B IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12, WHICH WE HAVE ALLOWED BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN PUSPANJALI REALTORS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 483/MUM /2016 DATED 17.01.2018. NO VARIATION OF FACTS FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRI NCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIREC TION. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ITA NO. 4987/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 BY REVENUE ITA NO. 2699, 5161 & 4987 MUM 2016-SHREE A HUJA PROPERTIES P. LTD. 10 21. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFF ECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT IS LESS THAN RS. 50,00,000/- AS PRESCRIBED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2 019 DATED 8 TH AUGUST 2019. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 17/2019 DATED 8 TH AUGUST 2019. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT IN CASE AT THE LATER STAGE IT IS DISCOVERED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN MONETAR Y LIMIT THE REVENUE BE GIVEN LIBERTY TO GET THE APPEAL REVIVE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE MONET ARY LIMIT OF RS. 50 LAKHS AS PRESCRIBED BY CBDT, HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 01/11/2019. SD/- SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 01.11.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4.THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMB AI