ITO WD 8(1)(3), V. DESAI CONSTRUWELL P. LTD,

MA 232/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6686 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GOSALIA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM M.A.NO.232/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1530/MU M/2009 : ASST. YEAR 2003-2004) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1)(3) MUMBAI. VS. M/S.DESAI CONSTRUWELL PRIVATE LIMITED 108/A LABH KUNJ, LAJPATRAI ROAD VILE PARLE, MUMBAI 400 056. PAN : AAACD9941J. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY GOSALIA DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.07.2011 O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.10.2010 IN ITA NOS.1530 & 1983/MUM/2009. 2. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING DE DUCTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFICATION AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF WO RK-IN-PROGRESS INCURRED BY M/S DESAI BUILDERS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING ABOUT THE DEDUCTION. ON THE CONTRARY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT PROPERLY AL LOWED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE SAID AMOUNT REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN A NY SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR THE MA NO.232/MUM/2011 M/S.DESAI CONSTRUWELL PRIVATE LIMITED. 2 DEDUCTION OF A PARTICULAR AM OUNT. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IS THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED VIDE PARA 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNA L IS CATEGORICAL FOR ALLOWING SUITABLE DEDUCTION IF THE AMOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS TAKEN OVER FROM DESAI BUILDE RS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WORK IN PROGRESS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE UNABL E TO SEE AS TO HOW ANY INFIRMITY CAN BE FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED SIMPLY TO VERIFY AND THEN DECI DE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FINDING NO MISTAKE, MUCH LESS THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WE REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 29 TH JULY, 2011. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPLICANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) VIII, MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.