ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-2(2), MUMBAI V. VALENTINE MARITIME(GULF) LLC, MUMBAI

ITA 7616/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71869 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY SRI VASTAVA
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Advance ruling

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !'#$ , % & BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAI YA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.7616/MUM/2011 ( ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 THE ADIT (IT)-2(1), SCINDIA HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 038 M/S. VALENTINE MARITIME (GULF)LLC (VMGL), C/O VINOD AGNANI, 402-A, CHHAYA, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI ( % ./ )* ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABCV 1070B ( (+ /APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : ` SHRI AJAY SRIVASTAVA ,-(+ / . /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HIRO RAI / 01% / DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2013 23' / 01% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2013 4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, MUMBAI DT.19.8.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 008-09. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UAE, ITA NO.7616/M/2011 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 7712/MUM/2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y 1999-2000. A P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THIS AT PAR A 4.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO . 7712/M/13 (SUPRA). 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R A.Y. 1999-2000. THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA-5 AND AT PARA 5.1. HAS HELD AS UNDER: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEC ISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE PARA-6 OF THE ORDER, HAS HELD AS UND ER: 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING POINTS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2005. AS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICERS RELIANCE ON RULING GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING IN CYRIL EUGENE PEREIRIAS CASE (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450; (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) AT P-742 WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THE SAID AAR RULING; THE RESPONDENT PLACED GREAT RELIANCE ON THE DECISION BY THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS CONSTITUTED UNDER S. 243-O OF THE ITACT, 1961, IN CYRIL EUGENE PEREIRAS CASE (1999) 154 CTR (AAR) 281; (1999) 239 ITR 650 (AAR) SEC. ITA NO.7616/M/2011 3 24SS OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE ADVANCE RULING PRONOUNCED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER S. 245R SHALL BE BINDING ONLY. A) ON THE APPLICANT WHO HAD SOUGHT IT; B) IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION IN RELATION TO WHICH THE RULING HAD BEEN SOUGHT AND C) ON THE CIT, AND THE IT AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE TO HIM, IN RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT AND THE SAID TRANSACTION. IT IS, THEREFORE, OBVIOUS THAT, APART FROM WHATEVER ITS PERSUASIVE VALUE, IT WOULD BE OF NO HELP TO US. HAVING PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY, WE ARE NOT PERSUADED. BEING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ABOVE CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE MIN. OF FINANCE AND INDUSTRY OF UAE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS QUALIFIED IN TERMS OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UAE AS RESIDENT IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES TO ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1997-98, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE DTAA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE RELIEF / BENEFIT OF DTAA WITH UAE. 5.1 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BR OUGHT BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED D.R AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DI RECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE RELIEF / BENEFIT OF DTAA WITH UAE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.7616/M/2011 4 5. AS NO NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY TH E AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2013 . 4 / 3' % 5 67 29.11.2013 3 / 8 SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6 DATED 29 /11 /2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS 4 4 4 4 / // / ,0! ,0! ,0! ,0! 9!'0 9!'0 9!'0 9!'0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. : / CIT 5. !;8 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8< = / GUARD FILE. 4 4 4 4 / BY ORDER, -!0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// > >> > / ? ? ? ? ) ) ) ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI