Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Linklaters, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 December, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "L", MUMBAI
Before Shri R.S.Syal, AM and Shri V.Durga Rao, JM
ITA No.3039/Mum/2008 : Asst.Year 2005-2006
The Deputy Director of Income Tax M/s.Linklaters
(International Taxation) 4(1) C/o.M/s.Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Mumbai. Chartered Accontants
Vs.
264-265, Vaswani Chambers
Worli, Mumbai - 400 030.
PA No.AABFL2160M.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Keshave Saxena
Respondent by : Shri Niraj Sheth
ORDER
Per R.S.Syal, AM :
This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 28.02.2008 in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006.
2. At the very outset the learned Departmental Representative contended that the issues raised in this appeal have already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case reported at Linklaters Vs. ITO (IT) [(2010) 40 SOT 51]. It was, therefore, prayed that the same view be followed in the absence of any distinguishing feature on the facts of the case or law as already decided by the Tribunal and those prevailing in the instant case. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, requested for adjournment giving reasons that some other assessee, on similar issue, has made application to "L" Bench for formation of Special Bench and the assessee was also considering for filing a miscellaneous application against the order of the Tribunal as afore-noted.
3. Having heard both sides and perused the relevant material on record it is noted that no Special Bench has been constituted so far on the issue as has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case. Further no Miscellaneous 2 ITA No.3039/Mum/2008 M/s.Linklaters.
application has been filed against the afore-said order. Once the Tribunal has decided a particular issue in assessee's own case in an earlier year and there is no change in facts or law in the subsequent year, then there is no scope for deviating from the view originally taken by the Tribunal. In view of these facts it was conveyed that the adjournment was not possible.
4. On merits the learned Departmental Representative contended that ground no.1 was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee whereas ground no.2 was in assessee's favour. This submission was not accepted by the ld. AR. As the facts and circumstances of the year in question are similar to those already decided by the tribunal in assessee's own case and no distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice, respectfully following the view taken by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the earlier year we allow ground no.1 and dismiss ground no.2 in the present appeal.
5. The only other effective ground is against not charging of interest u/s.234B of the Act. Both sides are in agreement that there are several orders passed by the Tribunal holding that when a particular income is such on which tax is deductible, then there is no obligation for paying interest u/s.234B. The tribunal, in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.3057 & 3058/Mum/2007 for assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, has ordered for the deletion of levy of interest u/s.234B. Following the precedent, we dismiss this ground of appeal.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
(V.Durga Rao) (R.S.Syal)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai : 27th December, 2010.
Devdas*
3 ITA No.3039/Mum/2008
M/s.Linklaters.
Copy to :
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) - XXXIII, Mumbai.
5. The DR/ITAT, Mumbai.
6. Guard File.
TRUE COPY.
By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.