ITO 24(3)(3), MUMBAI V. LAXRASI ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

ITA 2897/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 289719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K G KUTTY
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMESH SHAH
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, A, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) AND RAJENDRA SINGH(A .M ) ITA NO 2897/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER, 24(3)(3), C-11, 7 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA- KURLA- COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 400051. LAXRASI ASSOCIATES, 2 MANAV MANDIR COOP. HSG. SOC. 17 TH RD, SIDDHARTH NAGAR, GOREGAON (W) MUMBAI 400062 PAN: AAAFL 1686 K APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.G. KUTTY, D R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH, AR O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2010 PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,44,800/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION AFTER THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, THE LD CIT ITA NO 2897 OF 2010 LAXRASI ASSOCIATES MUMBAI 2 (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE LABOUR CHARGES, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.3.00 LAKHS FIXED BY THE CB DT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE ON THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 4. THAT BEING SO AND IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011, DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STATUTES) AND THE RATIO OF THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONSI STENT VIEW OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AN ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO 2897 OF 2010 LAXRASI ASSOCIATES MUMBAI 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD SD (RAJENDRA SINGH) (D.K.A GARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 27 TH OCTOBER, 2011 VNODAN COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI