ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI V. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

ITA 3771/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8488 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. /MUM/201 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A NO3771/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-12 ) ACIT-23(3), MUMBAI VS SHRI SACHIN R TENDULKAR 19A, PERRY CROSS ROAD, BANDRA (W) MUMBAI 400 050 PAN : AAAPT4135B APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI RAM TIWARI RESPONDENT BY SHRI PANKAJ JAIN DATE OF HEARING 26-10-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-11-2017 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RAISES THE FOLLO WING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL: '1. ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)34, MUMBAI ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R. W. RULE 8D OF 95,95,3561- B Y HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED IN THE ORDER AS TO HOW IN REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS THE AO WAS SATISFIED WIT H THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER T O PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT VALID.' 2 ITA NO. /MUM/201 2. UPON HEARING THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE ST ANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN ITA NO.3217/MUM/2014 & ITA NO.1411/MUM/2015. THE TRIBU NAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 25-01-2017, DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN GREAT DET AIL AT PARAGRAPHS 25 TO 32 OF THE ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREBY DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US ARE STATED TO BE IDENTICAL TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND A REASON TO ARRIVE AT A D IFFERENT CONCLUSION, THAN THE ONE ALREADY ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IS HEREBY REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 PK/- 3 ITA NO. /MUM/201 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI