Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Om Shanti Housing ,Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3), Mumbai on 13 November, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"C" BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024
(Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Om Shanti Housing Vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(3)
2 n d Floor, 20-B, Sugra Piramal Chambers, Dr.
Bldg, 16 t h Tribhuvan SS Rao Marg, Lalbaug,
Road, Near Dream Land
Cenema, Grant Road,
Mumbai - 400012.
Mumbai - 400 004.
PAN/GIR No. AABF04424B
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Anish Shah
Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar, CIT(DR)
सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing 06.11.2024
घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 13.11.2024
आदे श / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 24.06.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ('Ld. CIT(A)'), for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
2 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
1. 1. On the f acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A)- NFAC erred in deciding the appeal by holding as follows:
The learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,02,03,318/- being interest paid to the following 7 parties as your appellant f ailed to prove genuineness of expenditure and thereby sustaining reduction of closing work-in-progress from Rs.15,59,04,259/- to 14,57,00,941/-.
Sr. Name of the party Interest Amount (Rs)
No claimed and included in
closing work in progress
1 M/s Divyanshi Gems Pvt Ltd 7,37,553/-
2 M/s Manbhawan Exim Pvt ltd 8,11,308/-
3 M/s Siddham Gems Pvt Ltd 26,50,225/-
4 M/s Radhe Krishna Gems Pv t 41,53,261
Ltd
5 M/s Kaushali Impex Pvt Ltd 10,53,647/-
6 M/s Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd 6,77,101/-
7 M/s Varshit Enterprises 1,20,223/-
Interest on Loan (total) 1,02,03,318/-
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in passing order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard even though requested vide letter dated 6th April 2022 & 21* August 2023 which is contrary to provisions of law and natural justice.
3. On the f acts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming
(a) The addition of Rs 1,02,03,318/- which was done by the learned AO without providing to the appellant any material or clarif ication relied upon by the DDIT (Inv) Surat vide notice dated 11th December 2017.
(b) The disallowance of entire interest on loan of Rs. 1,02,03,318/- by merely relying on the inquiry made by DDIT (Inv)-1,Surat without any independent enquiry made by the AO and without providing any supporting report or other evidences relied upon by him.
3 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
(c) The addition which was made by the learned AO by coming to the conclusion without calling for any further information if he needed particularly when the papers called for by him were submitted and in not affording proper and reasonable opportunity. Your appellant voluntarily could not submit further information in the last week of the December, 2017 which was not demanded by the learned A.O., more so when he did not seek any further clarif ication.
4. On the f acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance and learned CIT (A) erred in conf irming the entire disallowance of Rs. 1,02,03,318/- on account of interest on loan of erroneous presumptions although several documents related to the loan creditors were submitted during the course of Assessment & Appellate Proceedings which are available in the paper book submitted to CIT (A) vide letter dated 6th April 2022 & 21 August, 2023.
a) Confirmation
b) Return of Income
c) Bank statement highlighting loan taken and repaid
d) Audited Financial
e) Details of TDS deducted in respect of Interest expenses.
f) All the loan creditors are assessed to tax.
5. a) On the f acts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned NFAC has erred in ignoring to the fact that the learned A.O. erred in erroneously and hurriedly, unjustif iably coming to the adverse conclusion without relying on the decision of the learned CIT (Appeal) dated 20th June 2017 for AY 2013-14 on similar facts and circumstances in the assessee's favour. The order passed by the AO has caused great injustice to your appellant and is merely on conjectures and surmises.
b) The learned NFAC erred in not considering to the following 4 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
i) The Disallowance of interest paid of Rs 62,54,440/- & addition of Rs 8,90,00,000/- u/s 68 in respect of borrowings taken from below same parties in AY 2013-14 was already deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) vide order dated 20th June 2017 & same was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 10th January 2020.
Name of the party Amount of Remarks
Interest
disallowed in
A.Y 2015-16
M/s Kaushali Impex Pvt Ltd 10,53,647/- Relief already
M/s Radhe Krishna Gems Pv t 41,53,261 given for
Ltd parties in A.Y
M/s Siddham Gems Pvt Ltd 26,50,225/- 2013-14 by
M/s Divyanshi Gems Pvt Ltd 7,37,553/- Ld.CIT(A) &
M/s Manbhawan Exim Pvt ltd 8,11,308/- Hon'ble ITAT
Total Interest 94,05,994/-
ii) We also state that no new loans were taken during the year from below mentioned parties The loan pertains to earlier years wherein interest paid was duly allowed by learned Assessing officer during the course of earlier year Assessment proceedings.
Name of the party Amount of Remarks
Interest
disallowed in
A.Y 2015-16
Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd 6,77,101 The Loan was taken in
A.Y 2014-15 (2 n d April
2013)
Varshit Enterprises 1,20,223 The Loan is old loan
taken in the A.Y 2010-
11 (30 th April 2009).
Principle amount is
already repaid.
Total Interest 7,97,324
iii) The Learned assessing officer had erred in not specif ically mentioning relevant reasons for addition in the Assessment order.
6. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
5 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
2. All the grounds raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in sustaining of disallowance of Rs. 1,02,03,318/-. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate the above grounds through the present consolidated order.
3. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as raised by him before the revenue authorities and relied upon written submissions filed before us.
1) The Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of property development. Your Appellant ventured into a project of redevelopment at Parel, Mumbai, wherein redevelopment project has not yet commenced. The redevelopment has not started as the tenants have not vacated the premises. Hence the firm has not declared any income in the return of income filed
2) Your appellant had filed Return of Income on 30th September 2015 for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring Income at Rs NIL. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act 1961. Subsequently case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice was issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Income tax Act 1961.The Appellant had replied to the notice from time to time as follows :-
Notice u/s of the Date of Compliance Income Tax Act 1961.
142(1) 10 th March 2017
142(1) 19 th June 2017
142(1) 8 th August 2017
142(1) 8 th September 2017
142(1) 19 th December 2017
3) The Learned Assessing officer passed an Assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income tax 19th December 2017 Act 1961 dated 27th December 2017 disallowing interest of Rs 1,02,03,318 being paid 6 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai to the below mentioned parties and reduced closing work in progress from Rs. 15,59,04,259/- to 14,57,00,941/-.
Sr. Name of the party Interest Amount (Rs) No claimed and included in closing work in progress 1 M/s Divyanshi Gems Pvt Ltd 7,37,553/-
2 M/s Manbhawan Exim Pvt ltd 8,11,308/-
3 M/s Siddham Gems Pvt Ltd 26,50,225/-
4 M/s Radhe Krishna Gems Pv t 41,53,261 Ltd 5 M/s Kaushali Impex Pvt Ltd 10,53,647/-
6 M/s Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd 6,77,101/-
7 M/s Varshit Enterprises 1,20,223/-
Interest on Loan (total) 1,02,03,318/-
4) The appellant thereaf ter preferred appeal before CIT (A) on 11st January 2018 against the assessment order dated 27th December 2017.
5) The Appellant has made below written submission to the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) from time to time Date of Notice Date of Compliance 23 r d March, 2022 6 th April 2023 16th August, 2023 21 s t August 2023
6) The Learned CIT (A) (NFAC) without providing opportunity of being heard even though requested multiple times vide letter dated 6th April 2022 & 21st August 2023 & also ignoring the decision given by learned CIT (A) & Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai for AY 2013-14 in our own case, has proceeded with passing the order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act 1961 dated 24th June 2024 confirming the addition made by the learned Assessing officer. Thereby he did great injustice to your appellant as decision given in preceding year on same f acts was not followed.
7) The Learned NFAC has erred in ignoring the fact that the learned A.O. erred in erroneously and hurriedly, unjustifiably coming to the adverse conclusion without relying on the decision of the learned CIT (Appeal) dated 20th June 2017 for AY 2013-14 on similar facts and circumstances in the assessee's favour. It 7 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai erred in not considering the fact that on the basis of facts and evidence on record the learned CIT(A) had directed to delete addition in respect of borrowings from same parties and had further held that appellant was entitled to deduction of interest paid to same parties. The order passed by the AO has caused great injustice to your appellant and is merely on conjectures and surmises.
8) i) The disallowance of interest paid of Rs 62,54,440/- & addition of Rs 8,90,00,000/-u/s 68 in respect of borrowings taken from below same parties in AY 2013-14 was already deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) vide order dated 20th June 2017 & same was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 10th January 2020.
Name of the party Amount of Remarks
Interest
disallowed in
A.Y 2015-16
M/s Kaushali Impex Pvt Ltd 10,53,647/- Relief already
M/s Radhe Krishna Gems Pv t 41,53,261 given for
Ltd parties in A.Y
M/s Siddham Gems Pvt Ltd 26,50,225/- 2013-14 by
M/s Divyanshi Gems Pvt Ltd 7,37,553/- Ld.CIT(A) &
M/s Manbhawan Exim Pvt ltd 8,11,308/- Hon'ble ITAT
Total Interest 94,05,994/-
ii) We also state that no new loans were taken during the year from below mentioned parties.The loan pertains to earlier years wherein interest paid was duly allowed as deduction by the learned Assessing officer during the course of earlier year Assessment proceedings.
Name of the party Amount of Remarks
Interest
disallowed in
A.Y 2015-16
Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd 6,77,101 The Loan was taken in
A.Y 2014-15 (2 n d April
2013)
Varshit Enterprises 1,20,223 The Loan is old loan
taken in the A.Y 2010-
8 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024
Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
11 (30 th April 2009).
Principle amount is
already repaid.
Total Interest 7,97,324
iii) The Learned assessing officer had erred in not specif ically mentioning relevant reasons for addition in the Assessment order.
iv) We like to rely on the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT (Mumbai) in case of ASI Industries Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA Nos 2400, 2401, 2402/M/2021) which states that rule of consistency needs to be followed by the department.
The doctrine of "Res-judicata" when translated to English means "a matter decided". Simply put the doctrine predicates that no man can be tried twice for the same cause or, to put it in legal terms a matter/issue which has already been adjudicated cannot be raised again either in the same court or in a different court. This doctrine mitigates the possibility of multiple, repetitive and vexatious legal proceedings thereby avoiding unnecessary wastage of resources and strain on the legal system while also leading to a modicum of consistency in proceedings over time. In common law the doctrine of Res- judicata enables a judge in a suit, when confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as an earlier/periods one, to by applying this principle to preserve the effect of the earlier judgement. The justif ication for applying this doctrine lies in the desire to promote efficiency and fairness and reduce unnecessary litigation. For a defendant, this doctrine enables him by relying in the absence of any change in the underlying facts or circumstances to obtain the same judgement as in an earlier case. The rule of consistency enables stability in the entire tax assessments and appellate process. However, while it is incumbent on tax authorities to apply it in letter and spirit The order passed by the Tribunal are binding on all tax authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the tribunal. We rely upon the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of UOI Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd AIR 1992 SC 711 that states "The principles of judicial discipline requires that the order 9 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable' to the department in itself an objectionable phrase and is subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent appellate court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessee and chaos in administration of tax laws". The same was duly considered by Hon'ble High Court (Madras) in case of Agarwal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd ([2002] 124 TAXMAN 440 (MP)
9) Judgement wherein information received from investigation wing cannot be taken as basis for addition u/s 68 of the Income tax Act 1961.
a) Kunjal Synergies (P.) Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com 672 (Kolkata - Trib.)
b) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs Hetal Nitin Shah [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1618 (Mumbai - Trib.)
c) Navneet Agarwal vs Income-tax Officer, Ward- 35 (3), Kolkata [2018] 97 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - Trib.)
d) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay High Court)
e) Santosh Khunteta vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 163 taxmann.com 416 (Delhi Trib.)
f) Shri Vasant Ramji Savla vs. ACIT in ITA No.6123/Mum/2017
g) ACIT vs. Rajesh M. Shah (HUF) in ITA No.7105/Mum/2016
h) M/s. Keynote Fincorp Limited vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 1643 &1647/Mum/2018
i) ITO vs. Shri Nemichand Lalchand Jain in ITA No.159/Mum/2017 10 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai Further Judgments ITA No. In case of 2118/Ahd/2014 M/s Deep Darshan Properties Pvt Ltd 2160/Ahd/2014 Aajivan Computers Pvt Ltd 2116/Ahd/2014 M/s Karmveer Real Estate Pvt Ltd 2157/Ahd/2014 Dignity Securities Trading Pvt Ltd 2119/Ahd/2014 M/s Blue Hill Properties Pvt ltd j. We rely on the following judgments:-
Sr. Particulars Citation Deciding
No Authority
I CIT Vs. Smt. Sushila 319 ITR 413 High Court of
Devi Khadaria Bombay
II ITO Vs. Anant 51 SOT 234 ITAT Mumba
Shelters (P) Ltd
III CIT Vs. Vrinder 366 ITR 232 High Court of
Rawlley Punjab &
Haryana
IV CIT Vs. Shibganj 115 ITR 408 High Court of
Electric Cables P Ltd Calcutta
V ITO Vs. Deep ITA No 2117 & ITAT Mumbai
Darshan Properties 2118//Mum/2014
Pvt Ltd
VI Rohini bulders Vs. 76 TTJ 0521 ITAT Ahd
DCIT
VII DCIT Vs. M/s ITA No. ITAT Mumbai
Manish Flur Mills 6792/M/2016
Pvt Ltd
VII ACIT Vs. Hanuman 40 CTR 0015 High Court of
Agarwal Patna
10) Failure to provide opportunity of cross examination is serious flaw CIT v. Vatican Land base (P.) Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi) Smt. Mahdi Gupta v. DCIT [2006] 8 SOT 691 (MUM.) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Boom.) 11 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Pushcart Construction Co. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 22 (Gujarat) Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713(SC).
Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (62 taxmann.com3) C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) Hon'ble High Court New Delhi in the case of M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) ITA 68/2021 & CM No. 9319/2021), CIT Vs Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC
11) Principle of Natural Justice The principles of natural justice are not def ined in any statute. Yet, they are accepted and enforced. In practical terms, the essential principles of natural justice are the following:
➤ Justice should not only be done but seen to be done ➤ One cannot be a judge in his own cause.
➤ No party should be condemned unheard.
➤ Impartial hearing must be extended to the person against whom a charge is framed to state his case.
➤ Final decision should be by way of a speaking order, for such an order prevents any bias or prejudice creeping into the decision.
➤ The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) and Chuharmal v CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250(SC) the court held that" although strict rules of the Evidence Act do not 12 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai apply to income tax proceedings assessment cannot be made based on imagination and guesswork. The substantive and normal rule of evidence applies together with the principle of natural justice."
➤ The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros v.CIT (1959) 37 ITR 21(SC) the Court held that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of evidence.
Your appellant therefore humbly prays that justice be given by deleting the addition made by the learned AO.)
4. On the other hand the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
5. We have heard the counsels of both the parties, we have also perused the material placed on record, documents filed before us, judgments cited by both the parties and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of property development and filed the return of income which was processed under Sec. 143(1) of the Act, subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notices and providing opportunity of hearing the order of assessment was passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act thereby disallowing the interest of Rs. 1,02,03,318/- being paid to the 7 parites, the details of which are herein below and reduced closing work-in-progress for Rs. 15,59,04,259/-.
13 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024
Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
Sr. Name of the party Interest Amount (Rs)
No claimed and included in
closing work in progress
1 M/s Divyanshi Gems Pvt Ltd 7,37,553/-
2 M/s Manbhawan Exim Pvt ltd 8,11,308/-
3 M/s Siddham Gems Pvt Ltd 26,50,225/-
4 M/s Radhe Krishna Gems Pv t 41,53,261
Ltd
5 M/s Kaushali Impex Pvt Ltd 10,53,647/-
6 M/s Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd 6,77,101/-
7 M/s Varshit Enterprises 1,20,223/-
Interest on Loan (total) 1,02,03,318/-
6. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld the addition /disallowance made by the AO.
7. Now after evaluating the records, we found that Ld. CIT(A) sustained disallowances of Rs. 1,02,03,318/-, being interest paid to the 7 parties as the assessee fail to prove genuineness of expenditure thereby sustaining reduction of closing work-in-progress. But, Ld. CIT(A) has ignored very important fact that the disallowance of interest paid of Rs. 62,54,440/- and addition of Rs. 8,90,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act was in respect of borrowing taken from below mentioned 5 parties which are exactly the same which were there in A.Y 2013-14 and in respect of whom the additions have already been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20.06.2017 and the same was also confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT vide order dated 10.01.2020, the details of those 5 parties are mentioned below:
14 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai Name of the party Amount of Remarks Interest disallowed in A.Y 2015-16 M/s Kaushali Impex Pvt Ltd 10,53,647/- Relief already M/s Radhe Krishna Gems Pv t 41,53,261 given for Ltd parties in A.Y M/s Siddham Gems Pvt Ltd 26,50,225/- 2013-14 by M/s Divyanshi Gems Pvt Ltd 7,37,553/- Ld.CIT(A) & M/s Manbhawan Exim Pvt ltd 8,11,308/- Hon'ble ITAT Total Interest 94,05,994/-
8. We also noticed that no new loan was taken during the year under consideration from the remaining two parties and that loan pertains to earlier years, wherein interest paid by the assessee was duly allowed as deduction by the AO during the course of earlier assessment proceedings, the details are which mentioned herein below:
Name of the party Amount of Remarks
Interest
disallowed in
A.Y 2015-16
Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd 6,77,101 The loan of Rs.
68,60,000 was taken in
the A.Y 2014-15 (2 n d
April 2013). The
Principle amount of loan
taken earlier was
accepted in the past &
hence question of
disallowance of interest
thereon does not arise.
Varshit Enterprises 1,20,223 The loan of Rs.
60,00,000 is old loan
taken in A.Y 2010-11
(30 th April 2009). The
Principle amount of loan
taken earlier was
accepted in the past &
15 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024
Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai
Hence question of
disallowance of interest
thereon does not arise.
Total Interest 7,97,324
9. Since the AO has not specifically mentioned the relevant reasons for making additions in the assessment order, therefore, the order of Ld.AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We further noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings several documents relating to loan creditors were submitted by the assessee which are available in the paper book submitted before the CIT(A) vide letter dated 06.04.2022 and 21.08.2023, which contains confirmation, return of income, bank statement highlighting loan taken and repaid, audited financial statement, details of TDS deducted in respect of interest expenses and also documents demonstrated that all the loan creditors are assessed to tax. Since Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the most important fact that on similar facts and circumstances the CIT(A) has already decided in favour of assessee vide order dated 20.06.2017 for A.Y 2013-14 and the appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT vide order dated 10.01.2020, which goes to show that the controversy in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT with respect to 5 parties out of 7 namely M/s. Kushali Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s. Radhey Krishna Gems Pvt Ltd, M/s. Sidham Gems Pvt Ltd, M/s. Divyanshi 16 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024 Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai Gems Pvt Ltd, M/s. Manbhawan Exim Pvt Ltd as the relief has already been given by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in respect of the same parties in A.Y 2013-14 and with regard to other two parties namely M/s. Namo Diamonds Pvt Ltd and M/s. Varshit Enterprises Pvt Ltd., no new loan was taken during the year under consideration and loan pertains to earlier years, wherein interest paid was duly allowed by the AO during the course of earlier assessment proceedings.
Therefore considering the principles of consistency and judicial discipline, and while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 711, the relevant portion of the said order is as under:
The principles of judicial discipline requires that the order of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable' to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent appellate court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessee and chaos in administration of tax laws". The same was duly considered by Hon'ble High Court (Madras) in case of Agarwal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd ([2002] 124 TAXMAN 440 (MP)
10. we delete the additions made in the present case taking into consideration the order of the ITAT for A.Y 2013-14 in assessee's own case vide order dated 10.01.2020.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.17 ITA No. 4092/Mum/2024
Om Shanti Housing, Mumbai Order pronounced in the open court on 13.11.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PADMAVATHY S) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 13/11/2024
KRK, PS
आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. सं बंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स ािपत ित //True Copy//
1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु बई / ITAT, Mumbai