ACIT 9(1), MUMBAI V. BANBURY IMPEX P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8044/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3613 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MANJUNATH KARKIHALLI
• Assessee Lawyers: OGESH THAR
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA(AM) . . , !' !' !' !' , !# !# !# !# ! !! ! $ $ $ $ ./I.T.A. NO.8044/M/2011 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2002-03) ACIT, 9(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. % % % % / VS. BANBURY IMPEX P. LTD., 40, A[PPORVA INDL. ESTATE, MAKWANA ROAD, OFF MAHAKALI ROAD, OFF. ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI. ' !# ./ ( ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACB 5759 Q ( ') /APPELLANT ) .. ( *+') / RESPONDENT ) ') , ! / APPELLANT BY : DR MANJUNATH KARKIHALLI *+') - , ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI OGESH THAR % - .# / DATE OF HEARING : 18.4.2013 /0& - .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.4.2013 !1 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2002-03 AGAINST ORDER DATED 28.9.2011 OF LD CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROU ND: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.80HHC OF RS. 1,24,30,611/- . LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO REWORK THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AT APPROPRIATE RATE TERMS OF DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT. SINCE THE MATTER RELATED TO 2001-02 IN WHICH NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AS IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME. FURTHER, IF IT IS ALLOWED, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF JURISPR UDENCE. 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. POINTED OUT THAT LD CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO REWORK THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AS PER DECISION OF ITAT AND, THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD BE NO GRIEVANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT. LD D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE ABOVE FACT. 3. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND THE FACT THAT LD CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO REWORK THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF DECISIO N OF ITAT VIDE PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID O RDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS DIS MISSED. 2 .3 - #2 - . 56 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH APRIL, 2013 . !1 - /0& #! 7 8%3 18 TH APRIL, 2013 0 - 9 SD/- SD/- ( !' , /RAJENDRA ) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) !# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 8% DATED 18/ 04/2012 . % . ./ PARIDA , SR. PS !1 !1 !1 !1 - -- - *.: *.: *.: *.: ;!:&. ;!:&. ;!:&. ;!:&. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ') / THE APPELLANT 2. *+') / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. < / CIT 5. :=9 *.% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9> ? / GUARD FILE. !1% / BY ORDER, +:. +:. +:. +:. *. *.*. *. //TRUE COPY// 5 (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 3