MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI V. THE ASST.C.I.T. CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5995/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7900 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S T BIDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER G DALAL
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIR.S.SYAL, AM AND SMT.ASHAVIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM ITA NO.5995/MUM/2008 :ASST.YEAR 2004-2005 M/S.MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION 398, KIRTI KUNJ, 14 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400 052. PAN :AAATM6413F. VS. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 19(1) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAMEER G.DALAL RESPONDENT BY :SHRI S.T.BIDARI O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 18.07.2008 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 . IT IS A RECALLED MATTER INASMUCH AS THE EARLIER EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED VIDE ITS LATER ORDER DATED 7 TH JANUARY, 2011. 2. THE ONLY GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.9,24,336. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD SUCH INTERE ST TO BE DISALLOWABLE U/S.40(BA). THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWA NCE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEND ED THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THE TRIB UNAL HAS UPHELD THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. WHILE REFERRING TO ADMISSION OF SUBST ANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE LEARNED A.R. PLACED ON RECORD FORM NO.8 REQUEST ING THAT IDENTICAL QUESTION OF LAW IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HE NCE A VIEW BE TAKEN AS PER SECTION 158A. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE DID NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTS. ITA NO.5995/MUM/2008 M/S.MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION. 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. INSOFAR AS THE PRAYER OF THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT IDENTICAL QUESTION OF LAW IS PENDING BEFORE TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT CHAPTER XIV-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DEALS WITH THE PROVISION FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS. IT HAS ONLY ONE SECTIO N 158A WHICH CONTAINS A PROCEDURE WHEN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IDENTICAL QUEST ION OF LAW IS PENDING BEFORE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE TILL THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY ON THE SAID ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, ADMIT, IN TERMS OF SEC. 158A(3), THAT THE QUESTION OF LAW ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL, IS IDENTICAL WITH THE QUESTION OF LAW STATED TO BE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. RESULTANTLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, AS PER SEC. 158A(4). IT IS, HOWEVER, MADE C LEAR THAT WHEN THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, AMENDMENT, IF NE CESSARY, SHALL BE MADE AS PER THE MANDATE OF SEC. 158A(5). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 . SD/- SD/- (ASHAVIJAYARAGHAVAN) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 25 TH MARCH, 2011. DEVDAS* ITA NO.5995/MUM/2008 M/S.MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION. 3 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) XX, MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.