DCIT CC 8 (1), MUMBAI V. M/S MARIE GOLD REALTORS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

MA 146/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2755 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA.No. 146/MUM/2022 [ARISING OUT OF ITA No. 6252/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2015-16)] DCIT – Central Circle – 8(1) Room No. 656, 6 th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 v. M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 21 st Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAECM7896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Department by : Shri Chetan Kacha Date of Hearing : 16.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. Through this Miscellaneous Application revenue is seeking for rectification of certain mistakes crept in the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA.No. 6252/Mum/2019 dated 13.09.2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 and requested for suitable amendment in the Tribunal order. 2 MA.No. 146/MUM/2022 M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that ITAT while adjudicating ITA.Nos. 6251 & 6252 /Mum/2019 gave a combined decision for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. It was submitted that the issue involved in ITA.No. 6251/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14 are relating to issues u/s. 263 of the Act. He submitted that, ITAT has decided the issue which was similar to the issue in ITA.No. 3495/Mum/2018 on the scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act. Further, he brought to our notice that the issue involved in A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA.No. 6252/Mum/2019 are relating to Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act wherein Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT has adjudicated as similar issue and accordingly he prayed that this mistake may be rectified. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR agreed with the above submissions and however, he submitted that the issue involved in the proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act as well as 263 of the Act are exactly similar and in both the cases the issue was adjudicated by the ITAT are in favour of the assessee. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that ITAT inadvertently passed the combined decision relying on 3 MA.No. 146/MUM/2022 M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the decision in ITA.No. 6251/Mum/2019 and with the submissions of the counsels that both the issues are covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, we noticed that the issues involved in ITA.No. 6252/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 not the issue relating to section 263 of the Act, accordingly, this appeal is recalled for adjudication. 5. With the consent of both the counsels, this appeal was heard afresh. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved is claim of depreciation on tenancy rights and the issue is decided by ITAT in favour of the assessee in A.Ys. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18. The issue and facts involved in this appeal are exactly similar to the decisions passed by the ITAT in favour of the assessee in the above mentioned Assessment Years. He filed copies of the ITAT orders for the above Assessment Years. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR fairly accepted that the issue involved in this appeal is decided in favour of the assessee. 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the issue is involving determination of depreciation on tenancy rights which is settled in favour of the assessee in various 4 MA.No. 146/MUM/2022 M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., decisions of the ITAT in A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 and 2017-18. Since this issue is settled in favour of the assessee, accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. 9. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 st September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 21/09/2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum