PARK LINGHT INVESTMENT P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3121/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48437 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: REEPAL G TRALSHAWALA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.3121/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 3121/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. PARK LIGHT INVESTMENT P. LTD., DY. COMMISSIONER OF BOMBAY MUTUAL CHAMBERS, VS. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2), BLOCK NO.36, B.S. MARG, MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 021. PAN AAACP9065D (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI REEPAL G. TRALSHAWALA. RESPONDENT BY: S HRI HARI GOVIND SINGH. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI DATED 25-11-2009 ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS : 1. IN LAW AND AS PER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE HONBLE C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.58,732/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE HONBLE C.I.T.(A) FAILED TO COMPREHEND THAT THE OBSERVATIONS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE GENERAL IN NATURE WITH OUT ESTABLISHING ANY PROPER REASONING BY THE LD. A.O. WHILE DISAPPROVING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION WAS THUS, PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN CASE OF DAGA C APITAL 2 ITA NO.3121/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. & WAS ARBITRARY IN ITS APPLICA TION TO THE PRESENT CASE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (2010) 234 CTR (BOM.) 1. 3. AS AGREED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION CIT ED ABOVE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (J. SUDHAKAR RED DY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 8 TH APRIL, 2011. WAKODE COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, C-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGIST RAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BEN CHES