SHREYAS R. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी सी. एन. "साद,"ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shreyas R. Mehta ACIT-10(3)(1) C/o. Rasiklal Hiralal & Co. Room No.212, 2nd Floor बनाम/ EC 4051-52, Bharat Diamond Bourse Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Marg Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACPM-8602-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Ajay C. Gosalia-Ld. AR Revenue by : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2015-16 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-17/IT-330/10306/17-18 dated 27/03/2018 qua confirmation of certain disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld. Authorized 2 Shreyas R. Mehta. Assessment Year :2015-16 Representative for Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the issue stood covered in assessee’s own case by the order of this Tribunal for AY 2010-11 order dated 07/07/2016 and also for AY 2011-12, ITA No. 3308/Mum/2018 dated 21/05/2019. The copies of the orders have been placed on record. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual running a proprietorship concern in the name of Rasiklal Hiralal & Co., was assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) on 23/12/2017 wherein the assessee was saddled with disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for Rs.9.06 Lacs, being expense disallowance @0.5% u/r 8D(2)(iii) in view of the fact that the assessee had made investments in shares. The Ld. AO proceeded to make the said disallowance since the assessee had claimed certain expenditure such as salary, bank charges, clearing charges, rent, telephone expenses etc. The assessee had earned exempt dividend income of Rs.33.94 Lacs. 2.2 Before Ld. first appellate authority, the assessee, inter-alia, pleaded that demat charges, STT charges and other expenses were debited to the capital account and not charged to Profit & Loss account and no expenses were claimed towards earning of dividend income. However, the submissions could not find favor with learned first appellate authority, who confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.