SHRI ASHWIN S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 23, MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई ए खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव�ी राजे�,लेखा सद� एवं अिमत शु� �ाियक सद� Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ashwin S. Mehta Addl. CIT- Central Circle-23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, R.No.409, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Worli,Mumbai-400 018. M.K. Road,Mumbai-400 020. PAN:ABAPM 2121 M (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) Revenue by: Dr. Daniel Assessee by:Shri Dharmesh Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 03.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ�ग�त आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद� राजे� के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- Challenging the orders of CIT(A)-40,Mumbai,the assessee has filed the present appeal raising various grounds. 2.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative(AR) stated that the assessee was not interest in pursuing Grounds No.1-3 filed for the AY.under appeal. Therefore,same stand dismissed,as not pressed.He further stated that effective ground(GOA- 4)dealt with interest and same needs to be adjudication. We find that GOA-4 is about disallowance of Interest Expenditure of Rs.72.60 lakhs.During the course of hearing before us,Representatives of both the sides agreed that the issue has arisen in the Harshad S.Mehta(HSM)group on many occasions and that the Tribunal had decided the identical issue in the cases of the individual of the group as well as the corporate entities of the group.We find that the Tribunal has restored back the issue to the file of the AO in all such cases.We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the case of Pratima H Mehta,one of the members of the HSM group,to which one of us was party (ITA/350/ Mum/ 2013(AY-2009-10 dt.11.5.2015).In that matter the third ground of appeal was about the disallowance of the interest expenditure and the Tribunal had decided the case as under : "2. …... Ground No.3 was stated to be covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in group case.Reference was made to the decision dated 5/3/2015 passed in 5136/Mum/2012 & ITA Nos.2151/Mum/2013 in the case of Growmore Leasing & Inv. Ltd. and reference was made to the following observations: "

3. Ground No. 4 relates to the disallowance of interest expense. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing this ground has been set aside by the Tribunal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

4. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.

5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. While disposing the ground relating to the disallowance of interest,we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the findings given in the case of Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Eminent Holdings in ITA Nos. 2139, 2140 and 2141/Mum/2013 have followed the decision of the Tribunal given in common group case of Hitesh S. Mehta at para 2.3 of the order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following 1