Pradeep Jagdishraj Vohra, Mumbai vs Assessee

Shri Pradeep Jagdishraj Vohra Dieal Annexe, 563, Central Avenue ................. अपीलार्थी / Corner of 11th Road, Chambur Mumbai 400 071 Appellant PAN - AABPV2297D

v/s

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ................... प्रत्यर्थी / Circle-22(2), Mumbai Respondent

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Premanand J.

Date of Hearing - 07.05.2015 Date of Order - 07.05.2015

ORDER

PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the

order dated 29th November 2012, passed by the Commissioner

(Appeals)-19, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2004-05. Following

grounds have been raised by the assessee:-

"1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A r/w rule 8D of ` 9,68,799 and the addition made by the DCIT be deleted."

2. This is the second round of appeal. Earlier, the matter was

restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the Shri Pradeep Jagdishraj Vohra

2

impugned order issued as per the decision of the Special Bench in ITO

v/s Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. [2008] 119 TTJ (Mum.) 289

(SB). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance on

the ground that he is bound by the earlier decision of the Tribunal and

cannot travel beyond the directions of the Tribunal and he has decided

the issue in accordance with the aforementioned Special Bench

decision. The assessee is aggrieved and, hence, filed the

aforementioned ground of appeal.

3. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 7th May 2015, however,

none was present on behalf of the assessee. Since the issue is small,

we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte, qua the assessee.

4. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order

passed by the learned CIT(A).

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

Departmental Representative and also gone through the assessment

order as well as the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is seen that

the aforementioned Special Bench decision was considered by their

Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt.

Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom.), wherein their Lordships

have held that provisions of rule 8D, would not be applicable to

assessment years prior to assessment year 2008-09. It is further held Shri Pradeep Jagdishraj Vohra

3

by their Lordship that though the provisions of rule 8D are not

applicable to the relevant assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing

Officer would be duty bound to compute the disallowance by applying

a reasonable method having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case. Therefore, we consider it just and proper to restore this issue

to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same in the light of

the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR

505 (Bom.). The Assessing Officer, while deciding this issue, may also

take into consideration any other decision brought to his notice by the

assessee and after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of

hearing, the impugned issue would be re-adjudicated as per law. We

direct accordingly.

6. In the result, assessee's appeal is considered to be allowed for

statistical purposes in the manner indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.05.2015

Sd/- Sd/-

RAJENDRA I.P. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, DATED: 07.05.2015 Shri Pradeep Jagdishraj Vohra

4

Copy of the order forwarded to:

(1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai