Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed
ITA 7022/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2007-08
Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 57
…applicant was in the bona fide belief that the matter was under consideration before the CIT(A). The delay was on account of bona fide mistake. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case Anil Kumar Nehru Vs. ACIT (101 Taxmann.com 191) in which it has been held that on identical issues raised by appellant in respect of earlier assessments, the appeal is pending before the High Court so the delay is liable to be considered. Anyhow, the matter of controversy u/s 263 of the Act is pending before the Hon‟ble ITAT. In this case, the delay is liable to be condoned in view of…
