, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -GBENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./5584/MUM/2014 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ACIT,CC-2, ROOM NO.906, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, 10 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BUILDING,ANNEXE MUMBAI-400 020. VS. SHRI YUSUF K. HAMIED 19, WINDSOR VILLA, WEST FIELD ESTATE, 63, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD MUMBAI-400026. PAN: AAAPH 4309 K ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: MRS. NEELIMA V. NADKARNI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D.P. BAPAT-AR / DATE OF HEARING: 04.04.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.04.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2014 OF CIT(A)-36 , MUMBAI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUA L, IS CHAIRMAN AND MD OF CIPLA LTD. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME 27.11.2011 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS.9.79CRORES. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 26.12.2013, U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.11.06CRORES. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US REPRESENTATI VES OF BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE EARLIER AY.S AND THE TRIBUN AL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO.S FOR THE AY.S 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. 3. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ON 13.7.2015 (ITA605 1/M/13 AY09-10) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER : 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BY THE ORDER DATED 21/01/2015 IN ITA NO.5319/MUM/2012. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN FURTHER F OLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-08 ALSO IN ITA NO.3770/MUM/2011 BY THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2015. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY AS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTO R OF M/S CIPLA LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN A PROPERTY OWNED BY M/S CIP TAL LTD. BY PAYING A RENT OF RS..1,670. ACCORDING TO THE AO, IF THE PROPERTY WOU LD FETCH A RENT WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED BENEFIT U/S 17(2) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, HE CALCULATED THE PERQUISI TE AT RS..1,27,62,032/-. THIS HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSIO N AND ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE A FTER DETAILED DISCUSSION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2008-09 HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 5584/M/14-YUSUF K.HAMIED 2 THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENC E, WE ALSO HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERITS IN THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE AND THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER EFFECTIVE GR OUND OF APPEAL, FILED BY THE AO IS DECIDED AGAINST ASSESSING OFFICER. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED . . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH APRIL, 2016. 4 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / C.N. PRASAD ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 04 .04.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , G , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.