Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Jyoti H. M Mehta, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 23, Mumbai on 18 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07)
Jyoti H.M. Mehta v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax
32, Madhuli, Central Circle - 23
Dr. A.B. Road [Now ACIT - CC-4(1)]
Worli, 4th Floor
Mumbai - 400 020 Aayakar Bhavan
M.K. Road
PAN : ABNPM 8233 B Mumbai - 400 020
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Dhaval Shah, C.A.
Department by : Shri Dr. P. Daniel
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017
ORDER
PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai dated 13.01.2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee in her appeal raised the following grounds: -
(1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Special court dated 30.04.2010 in MP No.41 of 1999, the assets under 2 ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta consideration and the consequential income belongs to Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta and hence the Income Confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have been taxed in the hands of Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the appellant.
(2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating the issue of rejection of books of account in the case of the appellant.
(3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition on account of unexplained household expenses of ₹.9,00,000/- out of the total addition of ₹.18,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer.
(4) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of ₹.42,435/- made u/s 68 of the Act.
(5) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant was entitled to deduction on account of interest payable to other brokerage firms.
(6) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
(7) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income assessed in the hands of the appellant were subjected to the provisions of TDS and hence on the said amount of tax, no interest can be computed u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
2. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ground No.1 of the Grounds of appeal is not pressed and may be dismissed as not pressed. In view of the submission of the Learned Counsel for the assessee, we dismiss this ground as not pressed. 3
ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta
3. Coming to the rest of the grounds, it is submitted that all the issues in the appeal have been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's group cases.
4. With respect to Ground No.2 regarding rejection of books of accounts, the Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the decisions of this bench in the case of Ashwin Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.6596/MUM/2013 dated 18.04.2016 [Pages 18 to 29 of Paper Book], Hitesh Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.9158/Mum/2010 dated 29.11.2013 [Pages 49 to 63 of the Paper Book] and in the case of Pratima Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.1942 and 1944/MUM/2012 dated 28.08.2013, submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after considering all books of accounts.
5. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. He further submitted that the assessee has not produced the books of accounts before the Assessing Officer.
6. We have perused the order of the Tribunal in the case of Ashwin Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.6596/MUM/2013 dated 18.04.2016 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and ITA.No.6597/Mum/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08, common order dated 18.04.2016 wherein the 4 ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta Coordinate Bench set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after affording due and effective opportunity to the assessee. Respectfully following the said order, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh keeping in view the directions of the Tribunal in the orders passed in the case of Ashwin Mehta v. DCIT dated 18.04.2013 referred to above. Accordingly Ground No.2 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
7. Ground No.3 is raised against confirming the addition on account of unexplained house hold expenses of ₹.9 Lakhs out of the total addition of ₹.18 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue is identical to the issue decided in the case of Deepika Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5487/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016 and Rasila Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5609/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016, wherein the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 50% of the amount sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). The Learned Counsel for the assessee also submits that this issue has been summarily rejected in the assessee's case for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 in ITA.No. 6155 and 6832/Mum/2013 dated 30.09.2015. Ld.DR placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. 5
ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta
8. We have perused the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 in ITA.No. 6155 and ITA.No.6832/Mum/2013 dated 30.09.2015, wherein the Coordinate Bench sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the addition to ₹.9 Lakhs as fair and reasonable for the reasons explained by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the Ground No.3 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2006- 07 also.
9. Ground No.4 is raised in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the assessee that this issue is identical to the issue decided in the case of Hitesh Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.9158/Mum/2010 dated 29.11.2013 for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 and ITA No. 5587, 5588 and 5068/Mum/2011 dated 12.06.2013 for the Assessment Year 1994-95 and 1995-96 and 2008-09 respectively and in the case of Pratima Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.1942 and 1944/MUM/2012 dated 28.08.2013 and submitted that the Tribunal has set side this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
10. We have perused the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Hitesh Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.9158/Mum/2010 dated 29.11.2013 which 6 ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta is a common order for various Assessment Years and find that the Coordinate Bench in Para 33 of the order disposed off the ground related to addition on account of deposits in the bank account treated as suspense entries by restoring the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for re- adjudication. The Coordinate Bench while doing so followed its earlier order in ITA.No.5587/Mum/11 and the findings Para 6.3 therein. Respectfully following the said order, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose.
11. Ground No.5 is against the entitlement of deduction on account of interest payable to other brokerage firms. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue is identical to the issue decided in the cases of Deepika Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5487/Mum/2011, Rasila Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5609/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, Ashwin Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.6596/MUM/2013 dated 18.04.2016 and submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
12. We have perused the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Deepika Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5487/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016, wherein the Coordinate Bench disposed off identical ground on account 7 ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta of addition of interest expenses by restoring the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. While disposing off this ground the Coordinate Bench relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Growmore Research & Assets Mgt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 5137, 5138 and ITA.No.2150/Mum/2013 and the findings therein. Respectfully following the said order, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
13. Coming to the Ground No.6 and 7 i.e. in respect of the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. It is submitted that the Tribunal set aside this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of Deepika Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5497/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016 and Rasila Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5496/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016.
14. We have perused the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Deepika Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5497/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016 and find that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal, wherein the Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the interest liability after reducing the amount of tax deductible at source and decide as per the provisions of law. Respectfully following the said order of the Coordinate 8 ITA NO.1732/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2006-07) Jyoti H.M. Mehta Bench in the case of Deepika Mehta v. DCIT in ITA.No.5497/Mum/2011 dated 31.05.2016 we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest liability after reducing the amount of tax deductible at source and decide as per the provisions of law.
15. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai / Dated 18/08/2017
VSSGB, SPS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
//True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mum