ITO 4(3)(2), MUMBAI V. RAJKOTIA SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6865/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4218 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS KUSUM BANSAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6865/M/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 2011 ) ITO - 4(3)(2), R.NO.648, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. M/S. RAJKOTIA SECURITIES LTD., 708, COTTON EXCHANGE BLDG, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI - 02. ./ PAN : AABCR3957K ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. KUSUM BANSAL, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARIDAS BHATT / DATE OF HEARING : 06.04.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .04.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 27.11.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 8, MUMBAI DATED 2.9.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(1 0 ) OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,32,455/ - . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY MERITS TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(1 0 ) OF THE A CT AMOUNTING TO RS.45,32,455/ - . IN THIS REGARD, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MENTIONED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITA NO.6363/MUM/2 012 FOR THE AY 2009 - 2010, DATED 5.6.2013. IN THE SAID ORDER (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT CONSIDERING THE COMMONALITY OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE SAME SHOULD BE DECIDED IN THE SAME LINES OF THE TRIBUNALS 2 DECISION IN THE EARLIER AY 2009 - 2010. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT (A), WHEREIN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE SAID TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 5.6.2013 (SUPRA). 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) DATED 5.6.2013, WE FIND, THE CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 2.1 TO 2.3 OF HIS ORDER. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE AND FOR THE COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, RELEVANT PARA 2.3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS THERE IN AY 2009 - 2010 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE AND MATTER WENT UPTO THE ITAT STAGE. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER ITA NO.6363/MUM/2012 DATED 5 TH JUNE , 2013 IN PARA 11 OF THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: - C ONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10), IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(1) SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED . WE ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN AY 2009 - 2010 (ITA N O.6363/MUM/2012), THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2009 - 2010, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISI ON TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 6.4.2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 3 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI