ULTRAMARINE & PIGMENTS LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ADDL.C.I.T.-7(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7600/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8342 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA SRAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.7600/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 M/S. ULTRAMARINE & PIGMENTS LTD., THIRUMALAI HOUSE, PLOT NO. 101/102, SION, MATUNGA ESTATE, SCHEME NO.6, ROAD NO.29. SION (E), MUMBAI 400 022. PAN: AAACUO718Q VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 7(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 6 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HIRO RAI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA, SR,AR DATE OF HEARING: 18.10.12 DATE OF ORDER: 31.10.2012 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2011 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-18, MUMBAI DATED 9.9.2011 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL READS AS UNDER: THE LD CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A SHOULD BE COMPLETED AS PER THE METHOD LAID DOWN IN RULE-8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI HIRO RAI, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE REVOLVES AROUND THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE-8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-2007. IN THIS REGARD, HE MENTIONED THAT THE AO ERRONEOUSLY APPLIE D THE RULE-8D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION WHICH ACTUALLY APPLICAB LE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 AS HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & 2 I.T.A. NO.7600/M/2011 BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 328 ITR 81 (BOM). LD CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. IN THIS REGARD LD CO UNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE MAY HAVE TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FILES OF AO FOR FRE SH ADJUDICATION AND DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE ADOPTIN G THE REASONABLE BASIS AS HELD AGAIN BY THE SAME JUDGMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO AY 2008-2009. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE PRAYER OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR REMANDING, WE PROCEED TO SET ASIDE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION CONSIDERING THE SAID JUDGMENT AND ADOPTING THE REASONABLE BASIS . AO SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (D. KARUNAKA RA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 31.10.2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR F, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI