ACIT CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S WATERMARK CAPITAL LTD.[PREVIOUSLY, WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD], MUMBAI
In the result, all the appeals of the revenue dismissed
ITA 800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14
Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Circle-3(3)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Watermark Capital Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Watermark Financial Road, Mumbai-400020. Consultants Ltd.) 1010, Maker Chambers- V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw3474H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anand Kumar Tibrewal Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 20.11.2019 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Has Not Preferred An Appeal/Cross Objection Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Since It Has Got Relief On Merits In Respect Of Grounds Raised By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). According To The Ld. Ar, Therefore, The Assessee Has Preferred An Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax Tribunal Rule, 1963 Wherein It Has Raised A Legal Issue Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Dcit Circle-3(3) To Have Issued Notice Dated 02.09.2014 U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Rules”). & Thereafter Erred In Framing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016
For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 115JSection 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148
…one in that way or not at all. [Taylor Vs. Taylor (1875) LR 1ch.D-426 quoted and followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC 322) and in a plethora of cases and recently in Zuari Cements Vs. ACIT (2015) 7 SCC 690. Therefore, as per the CBDT instruction (supra) in the present cases, only the territorial ITO had the jurisdiction to re-open the cases of the assesse (except AY 2009-10); and the DCIT by usurping this jurisdiction to re-open the assessment has wrongly assumed jurisdiction which he didn’t enjoy. Therefore, the action of the DCIT in these cases to…
