VINAY J MASHRUWALA, MUMBAI V. ITO 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3976/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2637 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP

Judgement Text

, . . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3976 / MUM/20 1 5 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 20 11 SHRI VINAY J. MA SHRUWALA, 2, A WING, ANAND DARSHAN, 13 PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI - 400026 VS. ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A E QPM 8297 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 / 0 7 /201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 / 07 /201 6 / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 20 10 - 20 11 . 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A ON THE PLEA THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE BALANCE SHEET PLACED ON RECORD, WHEREIN WE FOUND THAT ASSES SEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT .05% OF OTHER EXPENSES AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 8D(III). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION OF RS.69,685/ - IN RESPECT OF BROKERAGE INCOME. AS P ER AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE BROKERA GE INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER A TION . IT WAS CONTENTION OF LD. ITA NO. 3976 / 1 5 2 AR THAT THERE IS ALWAYS DIFFERENCE OF 2 TO 5 DAYS IN RESPECT OF SETTLEMENT DECIDED AND COMPLETED BY BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE . AS THE STATEMENT FOR LAST 2 TO 3 DAYS WERE NOT COMPLETED BUT THE SAME WERE COMPLETED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THIS INCOME IN THE NEXT YEAR. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIO NS AND FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR WHICH LAST STATEMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED RECONCILIATION OF BROKERAGE INCOME FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008 - 09 TO 2012 - 201 3 . WE FOUND THAT EVEN IN THE SE ASSESSMENT YEAR S SIMILAR METHOD WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) ASSESSMENT. INSOFAR AS INCOME HAVE ALREADY BEEN OFFERED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ON THE COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTE D DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 4 /07 / 201 6 . SD/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 1 4 /07 /201 6 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. R EGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//