ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI V. RAM AND COMPANY (INTERIORS), MUMBAI

ITA 4610/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 461019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALEXANDER CHANDY
• Assessee Lawyers: J P BAIRAGRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, D, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) AND PRAMOD KUMAR (A.M ) ITA NO. 4610/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96) INCOME TAX OFFICER, 9(3)(4), ROOM NO.255, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. M/S RAM AND COMPANY (INTERIORS) RAM HOUSE, 4, GAIWADI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, S.V.ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI-400062 PAN: AAACR5059D APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.10.2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI ALEXANDER CHANDY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P.BAIRAGRA O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE REA D AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.6,24,000/- IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S RAMMAICA INDIA LTD. V/S ACIT WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITA NO. 4610/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96) 2 ITAT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FOR THE AY 1 995- 96 VIDE ITA NO.878/MUM/2007 DATED 6.11.2008. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DO WN IN THE CASE OF RAMMAICA INDIA LTD. FOR THE AY 1995-9 6 AGAINST WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) ON THE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.3,00,000/- FIXED BY THE CB DT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE ON THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 4 THAT BEING SO AND IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STATUTES) AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148(BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS AND ALSO THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF TH E CO- ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AND ACC ORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 4610/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96) 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.10.2011 SD SD ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) (D.K.AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 10 TH OCTOBER, 2011 SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI