DHANLEELA INVESTMENTS & TRADING CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 7(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3703/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1948 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD RASAM
• Keywords: Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH , MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J M AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO. 3703/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 1996 - 97 ) SHRI DHANLEELA INVESTMENTS & TRADING CO. LTD. SHOP NO. 114, FIRST FLOOR SHAGUN ARCADE PREMISES CO - OP SOC, MA LAD (E), MUMBAI - 400097 PAN NO. AAACR1770P VS. DY CIT, OSD,CR - 7, MUMBAI ITO 7(2)(1), MUMBAI APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY .. PRAMOD RASAM, AR REVENUE BY .. B.S. BIST, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING .. 08 - 1 1 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .. 08 - 1 1 - 2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH , JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OU T OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - VII , MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO . CIT (A) - VII/ITO - 7(2)(1)/IT - 563/2007 - 08 DATED 31 - 12 - 20 08 . THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD 7(2)(1) , MUMBAI FOR THE AY 199 6 - 9 7 VIDE ORDER DATED 28 - 12 - 20 07 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R. W. S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) . 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THERE ARE TWO ISSUES I.E. FIRST REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO DHANRAJ MILL P. LTD. AMOU NTING TO R S. 32,97 ,605 / - AND ADDITION OF LIABILITIES WRITTEN BACK AMOUNTING TO R S. 35,55,453/ - . L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND HE DREW OVER ATTEN TION TO THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A) I N REGARDS TO FIRST ISSUE WHICH READS AS UNDER : - 8. A S FAR AS THE ITATS ORDER IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ANALYZED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION DURING THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM AND AFTER DISCUSSING THE SAME AT PARA NO. 2.8 OF THIS ORDE R, HAS ALREADY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO REASON WITH HIM FOR ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN HIS EARLIER STAND. 2.14. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CORROBORATED THE AO'S FINDINGS, AND HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ITA NO. 3703 / MUM/201 3 2 2.15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIO NED OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS, THE UNDERSIGNED STICKS TO THE CIT (A)S ORDER DATED 22/11/2000 ON THIS ISSUE, AS REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER AT PARA 2.12, AND THEREFORE WHILE UPHOLDING THE AO'S ACTION OF HOLDING THAT 86% OF THE LOAN WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE AP PELLANTS BUSINESS BUT ONLY FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN ORDER TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THE GROUP COMPANIES, AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.32,97,605/ - WAS NOT ALLOWABLE, ALL OF THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 3. AS REGARDS IN SECOND ADDITION HE TO OK US THROUGH THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF CIT (A) WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 3.6 THERE IS NO REASON WITH THE UNDERSIGNED TO DEVIATE FROM THE DECISION OF MY LD. PREDECESSOR ON THIS ISSUE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FRESH DETAILS OR SUBMISSION TAKEN BEFORE THE UNDERSIG NED, AND THEREFORE WHILE SUSTAINING THE AO'S ACTION, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS TOTALLY NON SPEAKING ORDER AND ON BOTH THE ISSUES THERE IS NO FINDING AT ALL BY THE CIT (A) . HE REQUESTED FOR SETTING ASIDE OF BOTH THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(A) FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. SR. DR CONCEDED THE POS ITION. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS A NON - SPEAKING ORDER AND FACTS ARE NOT AT ALL DISCUSSED. ACCORDINGLY, AS CONCEDED BY BOTH THE SIDES, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 - 1 1 - 2016 . SD/ SD/ (RAJESH KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCONTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 08 - 11 - 2016 SUDIP SARKAR/SR.PS ITA NO. 3703 / MUM/201 3 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY//