9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Dharmesh Shah Respondent by : Dr. P. Daniel ORDER PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: These cross appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-37, Mumbai dated 12.03.2012 for the assessment year 2002-03. Both the appeals are disposed off by this common order. Assessee s Appeal ITA No. 1945/M/2012 2. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is not pressed and hence the same does not require adjudication. 2.1. Grounds no. 1 2 relate to the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the liability amounting to ₹ 1,04,35,918/- for the AYs 2002-03 towards interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. It is pertinent to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41 of 1999, the assets under consideration and the consequential income belongs to Shri Harshad S. Mehta and hence the income assessed by the Assessing Officer ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that the ITAT, in the assessee s own case for the AYs 1994-95, 1995-96 2001-02 has decided a similar additional ground, the adjudication of which reads as under: 4. The assessee has also filed an application dated 27.05.2010 for admitting the following ground:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of Hon ble Special Court dated 30.04.2010 in M.P. No. 41 of 1999, the assets under consideration and the consequenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e years, we treat the same as academic in nature. In the absence of any distinguishing fact brought on record by the parties for the year under consideration, we, following the said decision of the Tribunal, decide the additional ground raised by the assessee in this appeal in same manner as aforementioned. Revenue s Appeal ITA No. 4219/M/2012 4. The issue raised in the grounds of appeal relates to the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the interest charged u/s 234A, 234B 234C of the Income Tax Act. As regards this issue, it is pertinent to mention that the ITAT in ITA No. 7498 7732/M/2010 set aside the ground as premature in the assessee s own case for the AYs. 2005-06 2006- 07 and a similar view has been taken by the ITAT for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n vested with the Chief Commissioner. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta (supra), the notified person, the assessee in the present case, is not without remedy since it is open to the assessee to take recourse to the remedy available under the direction dated 26 June 2006.We accordingly answer the questions of law as framed in the negative. However, we clarify that it would be open to the notified person to seek a waiver or reduction by making an application to the chief commissioner of Income tax in terms of the order dated 26 June 2006 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 12.2 The ld. Counsel pointed out that the matter is referred to the same bench for reconsid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
