PROLIFIC CREDIT & CAPITAL P.LTD, V. ACIT 5(2),

MA 824/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4507 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMMAD USM AN
• Assessee Lawyers: H P MAHAJANI
• Section: 5(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JM M.A.NO.824/MUM/2009 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4385/MUM/2008 : ASST.YEAR 20 04-2005) M/S.PROLIFIC CREDIT & CAPITAL PVT. LTD. KEJRIWAL HOUSE, 7 N.GAMADIA ROAD MUMBAI 400 026. PA NO.AAACP3204C. VS. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 5(2) MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI H.P.MAHAJANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHAMMAD USMAN O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL (AM) : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR THE RECTIFIC ATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16 TH OCTOBER, 2009 IN ITA NO.4385/MUM/2008. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CORRECT IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR CONSIDERING THE DEDUCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF EXPEN SES U/S.57 BY PRESUMING THAT HE HAD NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE OF EXPENSES. HE CONTEND ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.24 FR OM LETTING OUT THE PREMISES AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION O F EXPENSES DISALLOWED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT COMMIT AN Y MISTAKE IN ALLOWING THE EXPENSES. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER C ALLING FOR ANY RECTIFICATION OR RECALLING INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS SIMPLY RESTO RED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR EXAMINING THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENSES. MA NO.824/MUM/2009 M/S.PROLIFIC CREDITS & CAPITAL PVT. LTD. 2 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT EXAMINED THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION WITHOUT PASSING REASONED ORDER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE MUCH LESS THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER INASMUCH AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF EXPENSES WH ICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN. IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO SEE WHETHER SUCH EXPENSES ALLOWED BY HIM WERE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE INCOME TAXED UNDER THE HEAD `INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR NOT. FINDING NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION W E DISMISS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. SD/- SD/- ( V.DURGA RAO ) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER MUMBAI : 5 TH MARCH, 2010. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPLICANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - V, MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.