BHARAT TALAKSHI CHHEDA, MUMBAI V. JT CIT 23(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2894/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1371 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JOTILAKSHMI NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKAL HARIYA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2894/M/2014 (2009 - 2010) BHARAT TALAKSHI CHHEDA, 19, GANESH BAUG, J NEHRU ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. / VS. JCIT - 23(2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AABPC1879Q ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. DINKAL HARIYA / RESPONDENT BY : MS. JOTILAKSHMI NAYAK, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 .04.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.04.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 7, MUMBAI DATED 15.01.2014 FOR THE AY 2009 - 2010. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,06,409/ - U/S 14A OF THE ACT. AO CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FOR DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF R. 16,37,827/ - . AO IS SAID TO HAVE IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADEQUATE OWN FUNDS AND ALSO THE CONCEPT OF PRESUMPTION LAID DOWN IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. ON APPEAL, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ABOVE STAND OF THE AO. 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF THE CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM.) AND ALSO BINDING JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HD FC BANK LTD VS. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (BOMBAY) AND REQUESTED FOR DIRECTING THE AO TO APPLY THE SAID RATIOS OF THE JUDGMENTS. 2 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND THE CITED PRECEDENTS OF THE HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY WE ORDER. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 T H APRIL, 2017. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 07.04.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI