Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SANJAY GARG
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 5.5.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 26.02.2015 for the assessment year 2005-2006. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised seven grounds in toto and they relate to (i) violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) addition of LTCG amounting to Rs. 1,50,57,183/-; (iii) disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,07,600/-; (iv) disallowance of amortization expenditure of Rs. 17,17,462/-; (v) disallowance of legal and professional expenditure of Rs. 1,80,745/-; (vi) disallowance of other expenditure of Rs. 3,36,862/- and (vii) treating STCG of Rs. 36,33,874/- as business income. Grounds no. (ii) to (vii) are raised without prejudice to ground no.(i).
At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and brought our attention to the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.4248/M/2010 (AY 2005-2006), dated 17.02.2016, copy of which is placed
on record and mentioned that vide the said order, the Tribunal quashed the revision order dated 25.03.2010 of the CIT made u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, considering the said Tribunal’s order (supra), the fresh assessment order made u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act, dated 15.102010 becomes infructuous.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the said Tribunal’s order (supra), dated 17.02.2016, wherein one of us (AM) is a party to the said order, we find, vide para 18, the Tribunal quashed the revision order of the CIT. Considering the significance of the said order for the sake of completeness of this order, the relevant lines are extracted as under:- “18. Now let us, consider the Ground no.1 if the order passed by AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We have already given our observation in Ground no.2 to 9 raised in the present appeal and the result of all the grounds are in favour of the assessee, hence, the Ground no.1 raised in the present appeal is also allowed in favour of the assessee and we hold that CIT erred in holding the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are liable to be quashed.”
Considering the above decision of the Tribunal, the fresh assessment order made by the AO does not have legs to stand. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee becomes infructuous.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th July, 2016. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 18.07.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीराथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,
ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. 3 सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.