TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charged u/s. 234A & 234B of the I.T. Act. 2. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 3. The Appellant, therefore, prays that on the ground stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." ITA.No.5228/Mum/2011/-AY-2008-09 For the AY.2008-09 AO has filed following grounds of appeal: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that legal sanctity of law, the interest chargeable u/s. 234A,234B & 234C is not only consequential but is mandatory in nature. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Special Court Act, 1992 has not ruled out the provisions of Section 234A, 234B & 234C being not applicable to the notified persons or they are exempt from the liability of payment of interest under these section of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3.The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 4.The Appellant, therefore, prays that on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he foregoing grounds of appeal." ITA No. 5500/Mum/2011 A.Y-2008-09 Assessee has filed below mentioned grounds of appeal for the AY.2008-09: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred law and in facts in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting relief of liability amounting to Rs. 8,88,00,394/- (wrongly stated in the order as Rs. 1,02,64,463/-), towards interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 4. The appellant craves leave of Your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal." Assessee has also filed identical additional ground for all the four AYs. and same reads as under: 1.The Ld. (A) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of Hon'ble Special Court dated 30.04.2010 in MP No.41 of 1999, the assets under consideration and the consequential income belongs to Shri Harshad S. Mehta an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of advance tax.After considering the submissions of the assessee and the order passed by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s.Orient Travel Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No. 6868/Mum/2008-AY 2004-05),Pallvi Holding,Topaz Holding and Harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd. and other cases of Harshad Mehta group, he held that assessee did not have control over the her funds/assets,that she could not be held as defaulter for failure in payment of advance tax.Accordingly, he directed the AO to delete the interest levied u/s 234 of the Act. 2.2.Beforeus,Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the order of theAO.Authorised Represen -tative(AR)submitted that same issue had arisen in the case of Sh.Hitesh Mehta for the AY 2005- 06,that said ground was set aside to the file of the FAA for re-adjudication by the Tribunal.(ITA/772/ Mum/2000-01-order dated 26.04.2013). 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that identical issue in assessee's own case has been remanded back to the file of the FAA for the AYs. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08.We have passed the order in the case of the assessee on 02.08.2013,while deciding the appeals for the above referred AYs.(ITA.No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue as under: "3.3.We have heard the rival submissions on this issue and perused the material on record. The perusal of para 6.9 at page no. 8 of the assessment order reveals that one of the reasons for not allowing the provisions of interest claimed by the assessee is that the books of accounts produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings has been held to be unreliable. Shorn off all other unnecessary details, considering the facts and circumstances in toto, we are of the view that it would be appropriate that the issue is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits in respect of the issue pertaining to the rejection/reliability of the books of accounts produced by the assessee after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee for defending his case.We order and direct accordingly. Thus,Ground No.1 of the appeals is allowed for statistical purposes." Respectfully following the same,we set aside the issue to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication after affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground no.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.Ground No.4 is about disallowance of interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... FAA. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground no.4 is partly allowed in favour of the assessee. As a result,appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2001-02 stands allowed in part. ITA No.5500/Mum 2011/-AY. 2008-2009 7.Ground no. 1 and 2 were not pressed by the AR of the assessee.Therefore, same stand dismissed as not pressed. 7.1.The only effective ground for the year under consideration is about disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 8.88 Crores. We find that while deciding the appeal filed by the assessee for the earlier A.Ys.,we have remitted the matter to the file of the FAA.Following the paragraph nos.5.and 5.1.of our order,we restore the issue of disallowance of interest expense to the file of the FAA. Effective Ground of appeal is allowed in part in favour of the assessee. 8. Now we will like to adjudicate upon the additional ground taken by the assessee for all the four assessment years.We find that similar issue was decided in the case of Shri Hitesh S.Mehta and assessee's own case. While deciding the appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2005-06 to 2007- 08 we had decided that the issue was ....