DCIT 17(1), MUMBAI V. MEENA PANKAJ TANNA, MUMBAI

ITA 4413/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2242 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER G DALAL
• Keywords: Business income; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 4413/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 DY. CIT-17 (1) MUMBAI 400 012. VS. MRS. MEENA PANKAJ TANNA MUMBAI 14. PAN AACPT-4113-F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH (DR) FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI SAMEER G. DALAL ORDER PER D.MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO TREAT THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ONLY INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS BEL OW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, I.E. RS.2 LAKHS ( AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT CONTAINED IN F.NO. 279/MISC. 64/05-ITJ DATED 24-10-2005) AND HEN CE THIS APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE IN VIEW OF THE J UDGMENT OF THE 2 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PIT HWA ENGINNERING WORKS 276 ITR 519. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE FACTUAL ASPECT. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID JUDGM ENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE REVENUE FILES AN APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT, WHICH ARE BINDING UPON THE REVENUE, THE SAME MAY BE DISMI SSED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DESER VES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE 12 TH MAY, 2010. VBP/- COPY TO 1. DCIT, 17 (1), 1 ST FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-12. 2. MEENA PANKAJ TANNA, 204, RATTY LODGE, DR. AMBEDK AR ROAD, DADAR T.T. MUMBAI 14. PAN AACPT-4113-F 3. CIT (A)-XVII, C.-10, 7 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA- KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI 400 051. 4. CIT-XVII, MUMBAI. 5. D.R. B BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. 3 SNO DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12-05-2010 SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12-05-2010 SR.P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 12-05-2010 V.P. 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 12-05 -2010 A.M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 12-05-2010 SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---- SR.P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 12-05-2010 SR.P.S. 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER