M/s Avon Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

CO 13/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9811 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Salary income; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 234B; 14A; 32; 147; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 345/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF VS M/S AVON CYCLES LT D., INCOME TAX, G.T.ROAD, CIRCLE V, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AABCA4140R & C.O. NO. 13/CHD/2013 IN ITA NO. 345/CHD/2013 M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF G.T.ROAD, INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA. CIRCLE V, LUDHIANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUBHASH AGGARWAL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA DA TED 28.01.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-LL, LUDHIANA, ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE 2 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 63,29,348/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER SECTION 36(1 )(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-LL, LUDHIANA, ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 44,33,976/- MADE BY THE A.O. UN DER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-LL, LUDHIANA, ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,46,71,893/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY D ISALLOWING DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON WIND TURBINE GENERATOR. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-LL, LUDHIANA BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A)- II HAS ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT IT HAS BEEN IGNORED THAT ALL INVESTMENT WAS MA DE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,31,959/- UNDER RULE 8D(II) O F THE INCOME TAX RULES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO ELEMENT O F INTEREST PAID WHICH CALLED FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN NOT SETTING OFF THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST WHILE M AKING ANY DISALLOWANCE. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,98,375/- MADE BY THE AO UNDE R RULE 8D(III) OF THE IT RULES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE WHICH CALLED FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III) MORE SO WHEN NO SUCH EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO WHI LE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY FINDING IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE AC T. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND AT VILLAGE MORE KARIMA AND SHEKH PUR A DURING THE 3 EARLIER YEARS. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE LAND WAS RS. 4.78 CR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD RECEIVED LO ANS OF RS. 31.60 CR ON WHICH THE INTEREST LIABILITY WAS RS. 3. 77 CR. THE LAND HAD NOT BEEN PUT TO USE AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE AS SESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AND MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 57,36,000/-. FURTHER DISALLOWAN CE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F THE INTEREST RELATABLE TO THE BUILDING UNDER CONSIDERATION AT AY ALI KALAN. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 593,348/- WAS MADE AND TOTAL DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. 63,59,348/- WAS MADE. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO FRESH INVES TMENT WAS MADE IN THE SAID LAND AND SINCE THE ADDITION WAS DELETED IN THE EARLIER YEAR BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), T HERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 36(1)( III) OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1143/CH D/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATE D 17.01.2013 HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEA RS. THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PLACED AT PAGES 114 TO 132 OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 8. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE O F LAND AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA) AND VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.201 3, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT TOTAL ING RS.4.75 CRORES IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS UNDER: 14/1/2006 RS.1,50,00,000/- 9/3/2006 RS. 20,00,000/- 15/2/2007 RS.2,43,00,000/- 15/2/2007 RS. 57,00,000/- 11/4/2007 RS. 5,00,000/- 10. THE FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE PARA 4.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS REFLECTING AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ON THE DATES WHEN EARLIER INVESTMENTS WERE MA DE AND ALSO WHEN PAYMENT OF RS.5 LACS WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEAL S) THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE EARLIER YEARS AND THE SUM OF RS.5 LACS INVESTED DUR ING THE YEAR WERE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. 11. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION VS. CIT [298 ITR 298 (SC)] HAS REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THAT ASSESSEES CASE AND APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE AGAINST THAT ASSESSEE REPORTED IN 298 ITR 2 88 & 294 RESPECTIVELY. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) O F THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH INTEREST FREE LOAN OF RS.5 LACS BEING ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERN. IN VIEW OF THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION VS. CIT (SUPRA) WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEADINGS OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE 5 REVENUE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WHICH HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 12. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE LOAN OF RS.5 LACS HAS BEEN ADVANCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE BALANCE LOAN HAVING BEEN ADVANCED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WHERE NO DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND THE ASSESS EE HAVING ESTABLISHED THE AVAILABILITY OF THE NON INTE REST BEARING FUNDS, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND AND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE US. FOLLOWING THE SAM E PARITY OF REASONING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTI ON 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT OF RS. 57,36,000/-. 11. THE SECOND DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 36(1 )(III) OF THE ACT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN WORK IN PRO GRESS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DELETED TH E SAID ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.5 AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,93,348/- O N ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS CONCERNED , THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED AS TO HOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(L) (III) ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. IT IS NOT THE AO'S CASE TH AT THE CONSTRUCTION PERTAINING TO CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS WAS NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THIS CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS WAS WITH RE GARDS TO THE BUILDING AT AYALI KALAN AND THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONE D EVEN ONCE THAT THIS BUILDING WAS NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR HIS BUSINESS. THAT BEING SO, NO DISALLOWANCE ON THIS AC COUNT CAN BE MADE U/S 36(L)(III). THE DISALLOWANCE IF AT ALL IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE MADE UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 36(L)(III). HO WEVER, FOR APPLYING THE PROVISO IT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD BORROWED FUNDS SPECIFICALLY FOR CAPITAL WORK-IN-PRO GRESS. THE AO HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY FUNDS WERE BORROWED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHIHSEK INDUSTRIES IS NOT APPLICAB LE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. DISALLOWANCE MADE IS ACC ORDINGLY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED . 6 12. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTRO VERT THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AN D IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 13. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IS AGAINST DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS A ND THE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(II) AND 8D(III) OF THE IT RUL ES. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS. 28.05 CR AS ON 31.03.2009 AS AGAI NST RS. 19.88 CR SHOWN AS ON 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF R S. 3.77 CR. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE EXP ENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH WAS E XEMPT FROM TAX, SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT RE AD WITH RULE 8D OF IT RULES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER ELABOR ATING UPON THE ISSUE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, MADE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 55,65,935/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BEING RELATABLE TO SUCH INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX U NDER RULE 8D(II) OF THE RULES AND FURTHER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,98,375/- UNDER RULE 8D(III) OF THE IT RULES. TH E TOTAL DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S RS. 67,64,310/-. 15. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN VIE W OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE RELATING TO 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN M/S GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS DCIT 328 ITR 51 (BOM) APP LIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO OTHER DECISIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THUS, DI RECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINS T THE ADDITION UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 16. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS AGAINST THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY THE RE VENUE DATED 28.05.2014 WHICH READS AS UNDER : AO HAD NOT TAKEN THE CORRECT VALUE OF AVERAGE OF AS SETS AND HAD NOT DEDUCTED INTEREST OF RS. 2,64,41,559/- PAID ON BORROWINGS FO R SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND HAD ALSO NOT DEDUCTED INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS. 3,02,18, 910/-. C1T(A) ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF BY CORRECTING THE AVER AGE VALUE OF ASSETS AND DEDUCTED THE INTEREST PAID FOR SPECIFIC BORROWINGS AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,31,959/- ON BALANCE INTEREST OF RS. 1,12,85,747/-. BUT DID NOT DEDUCT THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST OF RS. 3,02, 18,910/-. HE ALSO DID NOT DEAL WITH THE OTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,98,375/- MADE UNDER RULE 8D(III) (ASSESSEE IN CO) . 17. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE C ROSS OBJECTIONS AND POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS NO SATISF ACTION HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE AS SESSEE WAS THAT UNDER RULE 8D(II) OF THE IT RULES, NO ELEMENT OF INTEREST PAID CALLS FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE, AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 (APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER THE NETTING OF INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(III) OF THE RULES, AS NO E XPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III) OF THE RULES. 19. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN R ELATION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES. ADMITTEDLY THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE. SIMILAR ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC TION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SU PRA) AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIONS HAS BEEN UPHEL D. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL N O. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 21. NOW THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE. THE PERUSAL O F THE APPELLATE ORDER REFLECTS THAT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT CALCULAT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE U NDER RULE 8D WAS NOT CORRECT AND IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 4.9 THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CALCULAT ION MADE BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D IS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF 9 INTEREST THE TOTAL ASSETS HAD BEEN TAKEN AFTER REDU CING THE CURRENT LIABILITY AND PROVISIONS FROM CURRENT ASSETS. FURTHER THE INT EREST INCURRED ON TERM LOANS TAKEN FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES HAVE ALSO BEEN IN CLUDED IN TOTAL INTEREST WHILE APPORTIONING THE SAME TOWARDS INVESTMENTS. TH E APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D, WORKS OUT AS UNDER:- TOTAL OF ASSETS AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS I.E. RS.2,30,71,681/- 01.04.2008 TOTAL OF ASSETS AS ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS I.E. RS. 2,47,20,15,207/- 31.03.2009 AVERAGE RS. 2,38,95,85,446/- INTEREST DURING THE PREVIOUS WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT. TOTAL INTEREST DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT RS.3,77,27,3 06/- LESS INTEREST RECEIVED RS.3,02,18,910/- NET INTEREST RS.75,08,396/- LESS INTEREST ON TERM LOAN WHICH WAS INCURRED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE RS. 2,31,81,384/- NET INTEREST RS.1,56,72,988/- 22. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REFERR ED TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CAS E IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBU NAL ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 16 & 17 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, BUT ARE B EING REFERRED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. 23. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILED WORKING AS BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AS PER WHICH T HE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS COMPU TED AT RS. 10,49,859/-. THE SAID WORKING IS REPRODUCED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER PARA 4.1 0 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. FURTHER, SIMILAR WORKING FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS ALSO FILED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS R EPRODUCED AT PAGES 18 AND 19. AS PER THE SAID WORKING, THE TOTA L DISALLOWANCE 10 UNDER SECTION 14A WORKED OUT TO RS.11,31,959/-. TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 24. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT WHIL E COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D(II) OF THE IT RULES I.E. THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO TAX, EXEMPT INVESTMENT IS TO BE WORKED OUT ON NETTING OF INTERE ST BASIS I.E. THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE CONSIDER ED WHILE LOOKING AT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND FURTHER THE INTERES T RELATABLE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FO R WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SIMILAR RATIO HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI SHIV PARSHAD AGARWAL VS ACIT IN ITA NO. 927/CHD/2012 REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER D ATED 27.03.2014 OBSERVED AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SALIGRAM SHIV PARSHAD AND IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINE SS OF CONSIGNMENT AGENT OF M/S TATA STEELS LTD. IN ADDITI ON TO THE BUSINESS INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2.13 CR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SALARY INCOME FROM M/ S AARTI STEELS AT RS. 61,69,515/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO D ECLARED INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM M/S AARTI STEELS LTD. A T RS. 118,29,523/- AGAINST WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED THE EXPEN DITURE OF INTEREST AT RS. 77,72,910/-. THE SAID INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DECLARED UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE COMPUTATION OF INC OME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PLACED AT PA GES 8 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSES SEE HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS. 13.45 CR IN THE SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE MADE OUT O F ITS OWN FUNDS I.E. ITS CAPITAL OF RS. 25.02 CR. THE SA ID INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS, INCOME FROM WHICH IS EXEMPT WAS MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ONLY INVESTMENT OF RS. 35 ,749/- WAS MADE. 11 9. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED INTE REST EXPENDITURE WHICH IS SET-OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST I NCOME OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND WHERE NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS REMAINING TO BE SE T OFF, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE AC T IN LINE WITH RULE 8D(II) OF THE IT RULES. THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD EARNED DIVIDEND IN COME OF RS. 305,730/- AGAINST WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 39,80,707/- WAS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(II) AT RS. 33,08,071/-. HOWEV ER, IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING INCURRED VARIOUS EXPEND ITURES, THE DISALLOWANCE WARRANTED UNDER RULE 8D(III) AT % OF THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AT RS. 672,6 35/- IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 25. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE TH E DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(II ) OF THE IT RULES BY FOLLOWING OUR DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IN RESPECT OF NETTING O F INTEREST IN SHRI SHIV PARSHAD AGARWAL VS ACIT (SUPRA). HOWEVER , THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III) IS TO BE COMPUTED I N LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. % OF THE AVERAGE OF TH E VALUE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT AT THE CLOSING VALUE OF THE INVE STMENTS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS, D ISMISSED AND THE GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CR OSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 26. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY T HE REVENUE AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON WIND TURBINE GENERATOR. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 28 TO 31 HELD AS UNDER : 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING VIDE PRESENT GROUND OF 12 APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATI ON ON POWER EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND ALSO O N THE TRANSMISSION LINES. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HAT THE SAID POWER EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WAS P ART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMILL, WHICH COULD NOT RUN WIT HOUT THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYMEN TS TO SUZLON ENERGY LTD. FOR BECOMING PART OWNER OF TH E SAID FACILITY ALONGWITH OTHER PERSONS WHO WERE UTIL IZING THE SAID FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPREC IATION ON THE SAID PART OWNERSHIP AS THE FACILITY WAS SET UP BY SUZLON ENERGY LTD. JOINTLY FOR GROUP OF WINDMILLS, AS IT WAS NOT VIABLE TO SET UP INDEPENDENT POWER EVACUATI ON INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY FOR EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDU AL OWNER OF THE WINDMILL. IT WAS ALSO CERTIFIED BY SU ZLON ENERGY LTD. THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID ASSET HA S BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY THEM ON THE SAID POWER EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. THE CONFIRMATION FROM SUZ LON ELERGY LTD. HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT (APPEALS ), COPY OF WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE C OURSE OF HEARING, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'THIS HAS REFERENCE TO YOUR QUERY SEEKING CLARIFICATION WITH REGARDS TO COSTS BORNE BY YOU ON SETTING UP OF POWER EVACUATION FACILITY FOR THE WIND MILL IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. 1. THE POWER EVACUATION FACILITY (PEF) SET UP BY US FOR YOU IS PART & PARCEL OF THE WIND MILL. PEF OR THE WIND MILL WOULD BE USELESS WITHOUT THE OTHER. EXISTENCE OF BOTH IS IMPERATIVE FOR RUNNING OF WIND MILL. THIS FACILITY IS SET UP JOINTLY FOR GROUP OF WIND MILLS AS IT IS NOT VIABLE OR FEASIBLE TO SET UP INDEPENDENT PRF FOR EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL WIND MILL OWNER. 2. ALL OPERATIONAL AND BENEFICIAL RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE POWER EVACUATION F ACILITY HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO YOU. YOU ARE PART OF OWNER OF PEF TILL THE LIFE OF THE WIND MILL. 3. SUZLON ENERGY HAS NEVER CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION ON THIS POWER EVACUATION FACILITY.' 29. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED THE TRANSMISSION LINES THROUGH WHICH ELECTRICITY IS TRANSMITTED TO ELECTRICITY BOARD AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMIL L. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON T HE SAME AT LOWER RATES. 13 30. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TRUMAC ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (S UPRA) HELD THAT TRANSMISSION LINES ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMILL AND ARE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 100%. THE CIT (APPEALS) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE PRES ENT ASSESSEE BEFORE US REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN TRUM AC ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (S UPRA) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE OTHER JUDGMENT CITED BY THE COUNSEL IS IN THE CASE OF TRUMAC ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD VS. ITO OF ITA NO. 555/MUM/2003. THE ISSUE RELATED TO REOPENING U/S 147 AND ALSO TO DEPRECIATION ON THE WIND MILL. AS PER AS REOPENING WAS CONCERNED IT WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER ISSUE WERE DEALT ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE HAD CAPITALIZED SOME OF RS. 42.50 LAKHS BEING THE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION MADE TO GEDA FOR CREATION OF COMMON SUB-STATION FOR EVACUATION OF POWER FROM WIND FARM. THE AO HELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE FOR CREATING AN ASSET NOR IT IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND HENCE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DETAIL AND HELD AS UNDER:- 'CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS O BE ALLOWED ON MERIT. FIRSTLY, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THESE MACHINERIES HAD NO INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONING AS SUCH. MERELY BECAUSE IT IMPROVES THE WORKING SYSTEM OR CONTROLLING/MONITORING SYSTEM, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INDEPENDENT MACHINERY AND NOT PART OF THE INTEGRATED MACHINERY. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS THAT IF THE MACHINERY INSTALLED AT THE FIRST STAGE OF INSTALLING THE WINDMILL ITSELF, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. MERELY BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON OR OTHER IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INSTALLED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT A PART OF THE MACHINERY AS SUCH. SINCE THE MACHINERY HAD NO INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED. COMING TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO GEDA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH IT IN THE CASE OF BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING LTD (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. IN CASE OF EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD; PAYMENT MADE FOR 14 OVERHEAD SERVICE LINE, WHICH REMAINED THE PROPERTY OF TRICKY BOARD IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ON FACTS, IN THE INSTANT CASE TIE ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENT TO GEDA IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HENCE, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO L,2,3,AND 4 ARE ALLOWED 31. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO P. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UND ER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN (2008) 118 TTJ 68 (PUNE)(TRIBUNAL). ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THE SAID JUDGMENT RELATED TO DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICAL ITEMS LIKE TRANSFORMER AND INTERNAL LINES UPTO METERING FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS. 7.00 LAKHS TO SUZLON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THIS GADGET WAS FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATED UPTO SUB-DIVISION OF MSEB. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY SO PRODUCED BY THE WIND MILL IS A WASTE IF IT IS NOT TRANSMITTED TO MSEB SUB- STATION. THE FUNCTION OF SUCH UNIT IS THAT THE ELECTRICITY SO GENERATED IS REQUIRED TO BE TRANSFERRED AND TRANSMITTED TO CABLE LINE UPTO SUB-STATION, WHERE THE ACTUAL UNITS SO GENERATED ARE STORED AND METERED. SINCE THIS IS THE FUNCTION OF TRANSFORMER UPTO DP STRUCTURE, HENCE OUGHT TO BE HELD AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WIND MILL AND IS CONSEQUENTLY ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. 32. THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT(OSD) VS. PARRY ENGINEERING & ELECTRONICS P. LTD. IN ITA NO.3317/AHD/2011 WITH C.O.NO.44/AHD/2012 HELD AS UNDER : 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES WINDMILL. THE DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 80% IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ENTIRE DEVICE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY USING WIND ENERGY. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO BIFURCATE THE DEVICE INTO SEVERAL PARTS AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON AT DIFFERENT RATES OF DEPRECIATION. THE FOUNDATION, CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL WORKS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE WINDMILL AND IS CLEARLY PART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMILL PROJECT ON 15 WHICH DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 80% IS ALLOWABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND TAKEN IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE DEPRECIATION AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE FOUNDATION, CIVIL & ELECTRICAL WORKS, INSTALLATION, PAYMENT TO GEDA IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION ON THE CAPITALIZED INTEREST, THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) THAT NO PART OF THE BORROWED AMOUNT WAS UTILISED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THIS LIMITED ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND IN CASE THE BORROWED AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND, THEN TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON THE CAPITALIZED INTEREST TO THAT EXTENT. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 33. IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS PART OWNER OF POWER EVACUATIO N INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED T O CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID ASSET. UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSET WHETHER OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY THE ASSESSE E BUT THE CONDITION IS THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE USED F OR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAI D DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO P. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA), THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TRUMAC ENGINEERING CO. PVT . LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) AND THE AHAMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT(OSD) VS. PARRY ENGINEERING & ELECTRONICS P. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE POWER EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURE FACIL ITY IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMILL THOUGH PARTLY OW NED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED T O THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT THE SAME RATE ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED ON THE WINDMILL. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION AT HIGHER RATE ON THE TRANSMISSION LINES WHICH AGAIN A RE PART AND PARCEL OF THE WINDMILL. UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WE DISMISS GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 27. THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX 16 (APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS, WE DISMISS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY THE RE VENUE. 28. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 6 IN CROSS OBJECTI ONS HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECT ION 234B OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.