ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI V. JYOTI PRAKASH DUTTA, MUMBAI

ITA 4018/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 401819914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIV DUTT
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIRAJ RANAWAT
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 4018/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 THE ACIT 11(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 VS. SHRI JYOTI PRAKASH DUTTA, 101/102, SILVER BEACH APT., A WING, A.B. NAIR ROAD, JUHU POST OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 049 PAN-AABPD 2975L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJIV DUTT RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ABHIRAJ RANAWAT DATE OF HEARING :31.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.11.2011 O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT. 2 ND MARCH, 2010 IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. WE OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND 2001-02. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT DEPARTMENT FILED APPEALS BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ITA NO. 4018/M/2010 2 THE SAME WERE DISMISSED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSER VED THAT SLP FILED BY DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO DISMISSED. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY HIM THAT SIMILAR ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACTS WAS AGAIN CONSIDERED BY TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB WAS ALLOWED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE ABOVE FACTS SAVE AND ACCEPT RELYING ON ORDER OF AO. 5. SINCE THE ABOVE ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACT HAS ALRE ADY BEEN DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND LD. CIT(A) HAS D ECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS OF TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GR OUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( P.M. JAGTAP) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 4018/M/2010 3 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON: 31.11.2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 31.11.2011 SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: SR. PS/PS 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: SR. PS/PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: