SHANUDEEP P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4110/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0857 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: A A PATADE
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4110/MUM/2013 (AY. 2007-08) SHANUDEEP PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYALAXMI MAFATLAL CENTRE, 57-A, DR. G. DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI 400 026. PAN: AACCS 0267J ...... APPELLANT VS. THE DCIT 3(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.A.PATADE RESPONDENT BY : DR.A.K.NAYAK DATE OF HEARING : 27/03/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/04/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-7, MUMBAI DATED 17/12/2012, WHICH IN TURN, ARISES OUT OF AN ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 15/12/2009. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IS WIT H REGARD TO A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,67,405/- MADE BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.4110/MUM/2013 (AY. 2007-08) 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE SINGULAR PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES, WHICH IS EXPLI CITLY CONTRARY TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT, 328 ITR 81(BOM). IT WAS PO INTED OUT THAT AS PER HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS APPLICABLE W.E.F ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND DOES NOT RETROSPECTIVEL Y EFFECT THE PRIOR ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 2007-08, THE MA NNER OF COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE BY RELYING ON RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE NO OBJECTION, IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR REDETERMINING THE ISSUE OF THE PERMISSIBLE DISALLO WANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT . 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO OBJEC TION TO THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REMANDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AFRESH. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND NOTI CING THAT THE INVOKING OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR IS CONTRARY TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD.(SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL REVISIT TH E ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE A ND AS PER LAW. 3 ITA NO.4110/MUM/2013 (AY. 2007-08) 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/04/ 2017 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH ) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26/04/2017 VM , 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