VAIBHAV P. SHAH, MUMBAI V. ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4368/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3868 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, , F , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4368/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 VAIBHAV P. SHAH, 60-B DOLAT, EAST WEST RD NO.2 JVPD VILE PARLE (W) / VS. ACIT - 21(2), MUMBAI- ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AALPS8652B ASSESSEE BY SHRI NEEL KHAN DELWAL (AR) REVENUE BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN (DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 26/07/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 11/08/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-32, MUMB AI, {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 19.05.2014 PASSED AGAINST AS SESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 18.03.2013 FOR T HE A.Y.2010-11. VAIBHAV P. SHAH 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI NEEL KHANDELWAL, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES (A R) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN, DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGA RD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WAS THAT ENTI RE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE GROUP COMPANIES, AN D THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT WAS FOR STRATEGIC REASONS AND THEREFORE, THE SAID INVESTMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN VIEW OF VARIOUS JUDG MENTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F OR RS.1,01,347/- BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE NOR THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE LATEST POSITI ON OF LAW. 3.1. PER CONTRA, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. 3.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE AR GUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THIS ISSUE DESERVES TO BE GO B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH IN VIEW OF TH E LEGAL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE ASSESSEE IS F REE TO RAISE ANY LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUE BEFORE THE AO INCLUDING THE ARGUMENT THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN THE GROUP COMPANIE S SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A. THE AO SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE VAIBHAV P. SHAH 3 ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT REQUISITE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES AND SHALL MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE STRICTLY WITHIN FOUR CORNERS OF LAW. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS ISSUE I S SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MA Y BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 11/08/2016 CTX? P.S/. .. #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * * ( % ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. * * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -. / (01 , * % 01 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / 34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) -% ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI