JAGUAR SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. D.K. AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI T.R. SOOD (A.M.) ITA NO.1855/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 JAGUAR SERVICES P. LTD. 302 B 3 RD FLR. VINAYAK SIDDHI C 79 D.K. SANDU MARG CHEMBUR MUMBAI 400 071. PAN : AAACJ1950H VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RG.-10(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI FALEE H. BILIMORIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL J.M. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT AGGREGATING TO ` 110 631/- TOWARDS THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME BY RELYING ON CLAUSE2(III) OF R ULE 8D. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE UNWARRANTED AND ARBITRARY DISALLOWANCE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING GROUND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S.14A R.W.R.8D AT ` 110 631/- AS AGAINST ` 16000/- UNDER THE SAID SUB CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (2) OF RULE 8D AND THE DISALLOWA NCE BE RESTRICTED TO THE SAID AMOUNT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RULE 8 D READ WITH SECTIONS 14A(2) & (3) OF THE ACT CAN BE APPLI ED RETROSPECTIVELY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.1855/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.01.2011 INTERALIA SUBMITS AS UNDER: OUR CLIENT HAVE INFORMED US THAT THEY ARE NO LONGE R AGGRIEVED IN THE MATTER AND THEY WISH TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FI LED BY THEM. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLO WED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FILED WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO B Y THE LD DR. 3. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SUPPOR TING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE REJECTED BE ING NOT PRESSED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. SD/- (T.R. SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2011. JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY- MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI