ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI V. BDCO CONSULTING P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5711/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8437 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H, BENCH MUM BAI , , , BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ./ ITA NO.5711/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) THE ACIT-3(1)(1), ROOM NO. 607, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI- 400 020. VS. M/S. BDO CONSULTING PVT. LTD. 42, FREE PRESS HOUSE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL ROAD, 215, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400 021. ! ./ ' ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCA7802P ( !# / APPELLANT ) .. ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI. M.C.OMI NINGSHEN & '( /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. ALPESH DHAROD & RAHUL MEHT A ) * + ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 21/02/2017 -./0 + ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/02/2017 !' / O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 24/06/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-8, MUMBA I FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 2 ITA NO. 5711/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1 HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER RULE 8D OF I.T. RULES, 1962 WHEN TH E COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND AS HEL D IN THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD . 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 18,68,128/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MAINTENANCE CHARES PERTAINING TO THE PERI OD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BE EN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND HENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWE D AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE PARTICULARLY WHEN CASH CRUNCH HAS NOT B EEN JUSTIFIED. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 64,085/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECONCILED AIR TRANSACTION S WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCH ARGE ITS ONUS OF SHOWING THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT ITS INCOME. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AND AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT M AINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE C IRCULAR. SINCE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR AFORESAID TH AT THE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY 3 ITA NO. 5711/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS; THE PRE SENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMIS S THE SAME IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ) 1* MUMBAI; 2 DATED: 21/02/2017 !'#$%&'&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) 4( ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) 4( / CIT 5. 78 $(9& , , 9&0 , ) 1* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. : ; * / GUARD FILE. !' / BY ORDER, % 7( $( //TRUE COPY// ()*+ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ) 1* / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA