Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVASHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dated 28th February, 2014.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to follow the decision and particularly the directions and ratio of Jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs CIT (2012) 312 ITR 272 (Delhi)/(2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Del) while deleting the addition of Rs.36,66,405/- under section 14A Rule (8D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is perverse both in facts and law.
2 ITA-3233/Del/2014
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. After considering the arguments of both the sides, in our opinion, the only answer to the ground raised by the Revenue can be “yes”. All government authorities acting within the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court are bound by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, when learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision/direction of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT – [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi), it cannot be said that he was not right. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 13.12.2016.