ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue raises the following effective ground of appeal:

"1. On facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A)34, Mumbai erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r. w. Rule 8D of 95,95,3561- by holding that the Assessing Officer has not recorded in the order as to how in regard to the accounts The AO was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in order to prove that the expenses were not valid." favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in & ITA No.1411/Mum/2015. The Tribunal, vide order dated 25-01-2017, dealt with the issue in great detail at paragraphs 25 to 32 of the order to arrive at a conclusion that the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and thereby dismissed the ground raised by the revenue.

3. The facts and circumstances in the assessment year before us are stated to be identical to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.

Therefore, we do not find a reason to arrive at a different conclusion, than the one already arrived at by the Tribunal. Hence, consistent with the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the revenue. The ground raised by the revenue is hereby rejected.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th November, 2017.