HIND FILTERS LTD, V. ITO RG 3(1)(3),

MA 482/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9428 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH I SHAH
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.482/M/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1111/M/2004) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 M/S. HIND FILTER LTD. , 1521/1522, MAKER CHAMBERS V, 221 BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 021. PAN : AAACH 039L VS. THE DCIT - 3(1), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DINESH I SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH DATE OF HEARING:12.10.2012 DATE OF O RDER: 12.10.2012 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: VIDE THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS CON TENDED THAT THE ISSUE RELATION TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WAS MISTAKEN LY SET ASIDE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION CONSIDERING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.8057/M/2003 ORDER DATED 20.10. 2008 AS WELL AS CITICORP FINANCE INDIA LTD (300 ITR (AT) 398) (MUM) AND WIMCO SEEDLI NGS LTD. (107 ITD 267) (2007) (TM) (DEL). THE SAID DECISION IS REQUIRED TO BE REC ALLED IN VIEW OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. REPORTED IN 328 ITR 81. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE APPLICABILIT Y OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 999-2000. FURTHER, HE FAIRLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAID JUDGMENT ALLOWS THE AO TO A DOPT A REASONABLE BASIS FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT OF THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. FURTHER ALSO LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE MATTER R ELATING TO THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE VIDE PARA 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND AO WAS DIREC TED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. PER 2 CONTRA , LD DR MENTIONED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS ALREADY S ET ASIDE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AO WILL IN ANY WAY CONSIDER THE SAID JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGN ED ORDER HAS NOT CALLED FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALREADY DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND, TH EREFORE, THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER ALL THE DECISIONS IN EXISTENCE ON THE ISSU E UNDER CONSIDERATION INCLUDING THAT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IS REQUIRED TO BE DISM ISSED. 2. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTE R COMPLETION OF HEARING ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 12.10. 2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR F, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI