DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI V. YUSUF H HAMIED, MUMBAI

ITA 3770/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0786 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D P BAPAT

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO . 3770/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 THE DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, OLD C.G.O. BLDG., M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. SHRI YUSUF K. HAMIED, WINDSOR VILLA, WEST FIELD ESTATE, 63, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 026 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPH 4309K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: MS. AMRITA SINGH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.P. BAPAT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 . 0 6 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 4 .0 6 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 36 , MUMBAI DT. 2 4 . 2 .201 1 2 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: ITA. NO. 3770/M/2011 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,60,210/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET RENT AND THE RENT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PERQUISITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(2)(II) OR A BENEFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(24)(IV). 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 5319/MUM/2012. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCEDED TO THIS. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT PART OF THE GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,33,26,143/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET RENT AND THE RENT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PERQUISITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(2)(II) OR A BENEFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(24)(IV). 6. CONSIDERING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN A.Y. 2009 - 10, VIS - - VIS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN A.Y. 2009 - 10, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA. NO. 3770/M/2011 3 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 4 TH JUNE , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SING H ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 4 TH JUNE , 2015 . . ./ RJ , 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 . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI