ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI V. TATA MOTORS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWNA S TELCO LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 724/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 40 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH VYAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SINGH SR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.L. GEH LOT, AM I.T.A.NOS.724 & 726/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1993-94 & 1990-91) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3), 555, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. TATA MOTORS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TELCO LTD.) BOMBAY HOUSE, 25, HOMI MODY STREET, FORT, MUMBAI. PAN:AAACT2727Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. DINESH VYAS RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.K.SINGH, SR.AR O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR, PRESIDENT: BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1990-91. THEY RAISE IDENTICAL GROUNDS. THE ONL Y ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALL OWING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON FOOD AND BEVERAGES TO THE EMPL OYEES AT THE GUEST HOUSE AS INSPECTION HOUSE EXPENSES. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. 2. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER DA TED 30 TH JUNE, 2010 IN ITA NOS.3001 TO 3003/MUM/2009 AND 3034/MUM/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1985-86 TO 1 987-88 AND 1989-90 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN WHICH TH E AFORESAID ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, REVERSING T HE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN THOSE YEARS. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS FI LED BEFORE US. IN THE IMPUGNED APPEALS, THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HI S EARLIER ITA NO.724 & 726/M/10 2 ORDERS WHICH HAVE SINCE BEEN REVERSED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. THEREFORE RESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE, WE REVERSE THE DECISION OF TH E CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- ( A.L. GEHLOT ) SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED 22ND OCTOBER, 2010. SOMU COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-2,MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI 5. THE DR I BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI