ACE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI

ITA 908/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3296 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.908/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. ACE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, 207, KARTIK COMPLEX, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI 400 053 PAN: AASFA3204E VS. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 20(1), ROOM NO.603, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012 (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATISHCHANDRA RAJORE, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 36, MUMBAI 'CIT (A)' ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASST COMM OF INCOME TA X 20(1), '(ACIT)' BY DISALLOWING 33,52,880 BEING REMUNERATION TO PARTNER S NOT BASED ON AMENDED DEED AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER THOUGHT AND HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT FULFILLING PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AND LAW IN VOGUE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS IT BE HELD THAT ABOVE DEDUCTION ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THUS ADDITIONS BE DELETED AND OR APPROPRIATELY REDU CED. ITA NO.908/M/2017 M/S. ACE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS 2 2. APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AMEND OR RES CIND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT ANY TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT NEIT HER ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING AS THE E RPAD NOTICE SENT WAS RET URNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS LEFT ON THE NOTICE BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS AS REGARDS THE CONFIRM ATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33,52,880/- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS WAS NO T BASED ON THE AMENDED DEED OF PARTNERSHIP AND WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSING THE RELEV ANT RECORDS AS PLACED BEFORE US, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY DETAILED ORDER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO D EVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS THERE IS NO M ATERIAL BEFORE US TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.08.2018. SD/- SD/- ( C.N. PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23.08.2018. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.908/M/2017 M/S. ACE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASS TT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.