ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI v. MUMBAI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5821/MUM/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 582119914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABCM4133A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5821/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI
Respondent MUMBAI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 19-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 13-08-2015
Next Hearing Date 13-08-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 27-09-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5821/M/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 2008 ) ACIT 4(3) MUMBAI. / VS. M/S. MUMBAI STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD. 7/10 1 ST FLOOR BOTAWALA BUILDING BORNIMAN CIRCLE FORT MUMBAI 400 001. ./ PAN :AABCM4133A ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY R. SINGH DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .10.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 27.9.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 8 MUMBAI DATED 5.7.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW TO THE ASSESSEE THE REBATE U/S 88E WHEN TAX LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED U/S 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY MERITS TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUB - BROKER IN S HARES AND SECURITIES AND TRADER IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. ASSESSEE FI LED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 66 56 652/ - . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2 71 12 400/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT AO DID NOT ALLOW THE REBATE U/S 88E OF THE ACT. IT IS THE OPINION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PAID TAX AT A LOWER RATE BY COMPLYING TO THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RATHER THAN PAYMENT TAX @ 10% ON 2 BOOK PROFITS CALCULATED AS PER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CIT (A) GRANTED RELIEF AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 88E OF THE ACT TO T HE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABILITY U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ALLOWABLE OF REBATE U/S 88E OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF COMPUTING TAX LIABILITY U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD LD COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW SETTLED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS MENTIONED IN PARA 2.6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HORIZON CAPITAL LTD IS ONE OF SUCH DECISIONS. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US . ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN GENERAL AND PARA 2.6 IN PARTICULAR WE FIND THE SAME IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PARA 2.6 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THIS ORDER THE SAME IS EXTR ACTED AS UNDER: - 2.6. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED EXHAUSTIVE SUBMISSION. IN ITS EXHAUSTIVE SUBMISSION / ARGUMENT AMONGST OTHER EXPLANATIONS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL INCOME HAS THE SAME MEANING IF THE INCOME IS COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 88E OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE BOTH WHEN THE INCOME TAX IS COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND AL SO WHEN THE TAX LIABILITY IS COMPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. IN ITS EXHAUSTIVE SUBMISSION THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HORIZON CAPITAL LTD. ON THIS ISSUE THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF GANESHYAM SECURITIES (P) LTS VS. C IT (ITA NO.342 / KOL / 2012); NAKAMICHI SECURITIES LTD KOLKATA VS. ITO (ITA NO.1108/KOL/2011); AHMEDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF S.K. STOCK BROKING PVT LTD VS. CIT (I TA NO.1074/AHD/2011) AND MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF TOUCHSTONE CAPITAL MARKET VS. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX (ITA NO.6031/M/2011) WHEREIN THE MUMBAI ITAT FOLLOWED ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHREEPATI HOLDINGS & FINANCE PVT LTD IN ITA NO.6046/M/2011. 3 7 . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE OPINION CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND RELIED ON VARIOUS PRECEDENTS BEFORE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NO T CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 1 9 T H OCTOBER 2016. S D / - S D / - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 9 .10.2016 . . ./ OKK SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI