MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6234/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70825 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI .. , !,#$ # % BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 6234/MUM/2010 ( ' ( )( ' ( )( ' ( )( ' ( )( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION 398, KIRTI KUNJ, 14 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400 052 ' ' ' ' / VS. THE ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 19(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400 012 * #$ ./ + ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAATM 6413 F ( *, / APPELLANT ) : ( -.*, / RESPONDENT ) *, / # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NISHIT GANDHI -.*, 0 / # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O. P. SINGH ' 0 12$ / // / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2013 3 ) 0 12$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2013 #4 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THE INSTANT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-30, MUMBAI (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 07.06.2010, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2007. 2 ITA NO.6234/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION VS. ASST. CIT 2. OPENING THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR, ITS COUNSEL, THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING I N THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.40(BA) OF THE ACT IN THE SUM OF RS.7,8 4,950/-. THIS IS A SUBSISTING ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, AND FOR WHICH IT IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT U/S.260A OF THE ACT FOR A.YS. 2001-02 AND 2002-03. IN VIEW OF T HE SAME QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO AVAIL OF THE PROCEDURE FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS BEFORE THE HIGH COU RT (OR THE SUPREME COURT) AS PROVIDED FOR U/S.158A OF THE ACT. IT WOULD, ACCORDINGLY, MOV E AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM (FORM NO.8), A COPY OF WHICH, DATED 24.07.2013, WAS PLACED BY HIM ON RECORD. THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY , THEREFORE, BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY FORMAL ITIES. SUCH A PRAYER WAS ALSO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PRECEDING YEAR, I.E., A.Y. 2004- 05 (IN ITA NO.5995/MUM/ 2008), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL ACCEDING TO ITS REQUEST, DISMI SSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ASSESSEES PRAYER, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY TOWARD CLUBBING OF ITS APPEALS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YE ARS, RAISING THE SAME ISSUE OF LAW. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WITHOUT DOUBT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF NOT ACCEDING TO THE ASSESSE ES REQUEST, ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, INASMU CH AS THE SAME IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISION OF LAW PROVIDING FOR A PROCEDURE FOR AVOIDING REPETITIVE APPEALS INVOLVING THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE THE HIGHER COURTS O F LAW. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY US IS THE IDENTITY OF THE QUESTION OF LAW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, AND WHICH IS, AS APPARENT FROM A BARE READING OF THE QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT (IN ITA NO.604 OF 2009 DAT ED 28.04.2009), THE SAME. IN FACT, EVEN ON EARLIER OCCASIONS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, ON A SIMILAR APPLICATION/S BEING MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTED FOR THE CLUBBING OF ITS A PPEALS, VIZ. ITA NO.1281 OF 2009 AND ITA NO.64 OF 2009, FOR BEING HEARD ALONG WITH ITA N O.364 OF 2003. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ADMIT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS/PROPOS ES TO MOVE THE REQUISITE APPLICATION BEFORE THE A.O., WHO SHALL DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN FACT, THE INSTANT 3 ITA NO.6234/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) MEHTA JAISING CONSTRUCTION VS. ASST. CIT WITHDRAWAL PETITION IS ONLY TO ENABLE ADOPTION OF T HE REQUISITE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE U S WOULD NOT SURVIVE, AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 5 16 ' (51 0 $5 0 1 78 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 14, 20 13 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 9' DATED : 14.08.2013 .'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS #4 0 -1: ;#:)1 #4 0 -1: ;#:)1 #4 0 -1: ;#:)1 #4 0 -1: ;#:)1/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.*, / THE RESPONDENT 3. < ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. < / CIT CONCERNED 5. :?@ -1' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. @A( B / GUARD FILE #4' #4' #4' #4' / BY ORDER, C CC C/ // /7 7 7 7 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI