DR. RAMESH C. SHAH, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 19(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5418/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8662 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL B JOSHI
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI V. DUR GA RAO, J.M. ITA NO. 5418/M/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DR. RAMESH C. SHAH, APPELLANT BHUPENDRA MANSION, 10, PHIRZSHA STREET, SANTACRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI 400 054. (PAN AAFPS8772A) VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RESPONDENT 19(2), MUMBAI. APPELLANT BY : MR. VIPUL B. JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : MR. JITENDRA YADAV . ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- XIX, MUMBAI, PASSED ON 21/07/2009 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LEARNED AO IN MAKING ADDITIONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,41,658/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,41,658/- U /S 14A OF THE ACT, OUT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PR OFESSION BY RELYING ITA NO. 5418/M/09 DR. RAMESH C. SHAH. 2 UPON THE DECISION OF ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL INVESTME NT PVT. LTD. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE LEARNED R EPRESENTATIVES AGREED BEFORE US THAT THE QUESTION OF MAKING DISALL OWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE R ECENT JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LIM ITED VS ACIT, 328 ITR 81 WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE IN SUCH CASE WHERE THE DISALLOWA NCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUM REASONAB LE BASIS. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE QUANTU M OF DISALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HO N'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LIMITED (SUPRA), AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. D URGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28 TH JANUARY, 2011. ITA NO. 5418/M/09 DR. RAMESH C. SHAH. 3 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, D BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI. KV