JANAK D. DWARKADAS, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 11(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7031/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84438 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADIP J JOSHI
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUM BAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7031/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) JANAK D. DWARKADAS MULLA HOUSE, 3 RD FLOOR, 51, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 001 / VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-11(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAEPD 8303 R ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADIP J. JOSHI !' # $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV % &'( # )* / DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2014 +,- # )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2014 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 03.10.2012, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2011. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT, MADE INVOKING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RU LES, 1962 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) AT RS,32,06,097/-, SINCE UPHELD BY THE LD. C IT(A), SO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 7031/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) JANAK D. DWARKADAS VS. ADDL. CIT 3. BEFORE US, IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED TO BY THE LD. AR (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THAT A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, I.E., A.Y. 2008-09, HAS SINCE BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.01.2014, PLACING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON RECORD (IN ITA NO.4 861/MUM/2012). HE ALSO COULD NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OR THE LAW IN THE MATTER, I.E., VIS--VIS THAT OBTAINING FOR THE SAID PRECEDING YEA R. THE LD. DR WOULD, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT ON THE TRIBUNAL TO FOLLOW THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. VIDE THE CITED ORDER, IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, T HE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AS BEING MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, SO THAT IT WAS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED. NO INFIRMITY, EVEN OTHERWISE, STANDS POINTED OUT TO US , WITH IT BEING RATHER AGAIN FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE IS PARITY OF FACTS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON WHATSOE VER FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, CONFIRMING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. IN FACT, EVEN AS POINTED OUT BY IT, T HE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE STANDS MADE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, SO THAT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN; THE LD. CIT(A), HOLDING LIKE-WISE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM). WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM T HE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. /-)0 &12/) # / # ) 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 17, 2014. SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % ( MUMBAI; 5& DATED : 17.12.2014 '.&../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 3 ITA NO. 7031/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2009-10) JANAK D. DWARKADAS VS. ADDL. CIT !' # $%&' ('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % 6) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % 6) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 9':; !)&<1 , * <1- , % ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;=2 >( / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % ( / ITAT, MUMBAI