Dy.CIT Cir-2, Kolhapur, V. Dhananjay B. Mahadik,

ITA 566/PUN/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3325 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJU AJWANI
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR (JM) AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) ITA NO. 566 & 567/PN/2008 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04 & 2004-05) DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOLHAPUR . APPELLANT V. SHRI DHANANJAY B. MAHADIK C/O. KOLHAPUR MOTOR MALAK VAHATUK MALAK SANGH LTD., 2113, E. PUNE- BANGALORE ROAD, KOLHAPUR PAN : NOT AVAILABLE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. MANJU AJWANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. NIKHIL PATHAK ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE FILED AGAINST THE C OMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- KOLHAPUR, DATED 18.12.2007 FOR THE A.YS. 2003 -04 & 2004-05. GROUNDS IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND SAME READ AS UND ER : 1] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON BORROWED F UNDS AGAINST REMUNERATION, INTEREST AND SHARE OF PROFIT RECEIVED FROM F IRMS WHEREIN HE IS A PARTNER. 2] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SHARE OF PROFIT FROM FIRM BEING EXEMPT, A NY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH PROFIT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCT ION U/S.14A OF THE ACT AND ALSO IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE IND IAN PARTNERSHIP ACT. 3] THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR BE VACATED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT A ND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE AGITATED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST THE COMPOSITE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DT. 18.12.2007. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED TH AT TAX EFFECT IN BOTH THESE APPEALS PUT TOGETHER IS LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS. FURT HER, THE COUNSEL FILED INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 OF THE CBDT DT. 15.5.2008 AND RELIED O N PARA 5 OF THE SAID ITA NO 566 & 567/PN/2008 SHRI DHANANJAY B. MAHADIK A.Y.2003-04 &2004-05 2 INSTRUCTIONS. FURTHER, RELYING ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR, 318 ITR 149 FOR THE PROPOSITIO N THAT THE APPEALS OF THIS KIND ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE TAX EFFECT HAS NOT EXCEEDED THE MONITORY LIMIT PRESCRIBED, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THE IMPUGNED APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID CIRCULAR AS WELL AS THE CI TED JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. DESPITE THE FACT IT IS A COMPOSI TE ORDER AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TAX EFFECT IN BOTH THESE APPEALS HAS NOT EXCEEDED THE MONITORY LIMIT PRESECRIBED, THESE APPEALS FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF APPEALS PRESCRIBED IN PARA 5 OF THE CITED CBDT INSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9TH DAY OF SEP TEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT- I/II KOLHAPUR/ CIT (CEN), PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)- KOLHAPUR, PUNE 4. THE D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE