Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Addl. CIT, Range-9, Pune

ITA 1031/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2245 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Source of fund; Proportionate interest
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , !, # $ BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 FORBES MARSHALL PVT. LTD., A-34/35 H BLOCK, MIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PIMPRI, PUNE 400 018. PAN : AAACF2630E . APPELLANT VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 9, PUNE. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.10.2015 % / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, PUNE DATED 13.02.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN PARTIALLY SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE ITA, 19 61 MADE BY THE LEARNED ACIT, RANGE-9, PUNE. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE OUGHT NO T TO HAVE SUSTAINED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,35,558/- U/S 14A OF THE ITA, 1 961, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS LEGAL PROPOSITIONS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ITA, 1961 WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THAT, NO SATISFACTION AS TO INCORRECTNESS OF EXPENSES WORKED OUT BY THE APPE LLANTS IS REACHED BY THE LEARNED AO PRIOR TO MAKING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 2 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE AND THE LEARNED AO ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 14A OF THE ITA, 1961 DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT, INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS COMPANIES ARE MADE BY THE AP PELLANT FROM ITS OWN FUNDS. THE LEARNED I-T AUTHORITIES FURTHER ERRED IN LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING RATIO OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 (BOMB AY) AS REGARDS THE THEORY OF PRESUMPTION OF INVESTMENTS FROM OWN FUNDS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN SUSTAINING AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES @ 0.50% ON AVERAGE INVESTM ENTS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,0 07/- WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD / ALTER / AMEN D / DELETE ALL / ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE SOLITARY DISPUTE RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,35,558/- AGAINST TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OF RS.10,84,990/- BY INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE AC T R.W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES). 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS CONCERNING THE ISSU E INVOLVED ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURING OF STEAM CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS, INTER-ALIA , DECLARED TAX-FREE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.4,11,66,682/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES, SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUNDS, BOTH QUOTED AN D UNQUOTED, AS APPEARING IN PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK BEING SCHEDULES FORMING PA RT OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009. THESE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND SECU RITIES, ETC. HAVE YIELDED TAX-FREE DIVIDEND INCOME NOTED ABOVE. THER EFORE, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT TO DISALLOW EX PENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AND AS A SEQUEL THE RETO, COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,84,990/- IN TERMS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 5. THE BREAKUP OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS AS UNDER :- (A) IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES RS.5 ,82,322/- (B) IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES RS. 5,02,668/- 3 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 THUS, ESTIMATED SUO-MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,007/- BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T AGREED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISALLOWED RS.35,007/- VOLUNTA RILY BEING ONE MONTH SALARY OF THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER AS REASONABLE ESTIMA TED EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE AVERRED THAT T HE DISALLOWANCE REPRESENTS BONA-FIDE ESTIMATE OF EXPENSES FOR EARNING TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT OVERDR AFT ACCOUNT AS WELL AS CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT OF THE BANK WERE ADMITTEDLY UTILIZED FOR PAYMENT TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPLIED THA T EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES INCOME WHICH IS N OT TAXABLE. THIS BEING DEMONSTRATED, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER O BSERVED THAT ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,007/- BEING ONE MONTH SALARY OF THE ACCOUNT OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC MANNER PROVIDED IN RULE 8D OF THE RULES FOR WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE . NONETHELESS, THE CIT(A) AGREED TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE T OTAL INVESTMENTS GENERATING TAX-FREE DIVIDEND INCOME ALSO INCLUDE INVESTMENTS I N SHARES OF OVERSEAS COMPANIES WHERE THE DIVIDEND ARE TAXABLE. THEREFORE , SAME HAS TO BE SUITABLY EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATION OF DISALLO WANCE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE CIT (A) ADMITTED THIS PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE AND THE REVISED WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AS PER LETTER DATED 11.02.201 3 AS REPRODUCED IN PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER WERE ACCEPTED. AS PER REVISED WORKING, TH E DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES WORKED OUT TO RS.3,59,897/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EX PENSES, ETC. BEING 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) O F THE RULES WORKED OUT TO RS.3,10,668/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES WAS REDUCED AND REVISED T O RS.6,70,565/- AS AGAINST THE AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,84,990/- COMPUT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE, AT THE OUTSET, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,007/- IN THE INCOME RETURNED WHICH IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE MEAGER EXPENSES PURPORTED TO BE INCURRED F OR GENERATING DIVIDEND INCOME. HE, THEREAFTER, ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPARATIVE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2008-09 AND 2007-08 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY A S ANNEXED IN PAPER BOOK FROM PAGE 1 TO 11. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE OWN FUN DS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON 31.03.2009 STANDS AT RS.71.56 CRORES AS AGAIN ST THE CONSOLIDATED INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES, DEBENTURES AND MUTUAL FUNDS, ETC. WHICH STANDS AT RS.10.53 CRORES. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST -FREE OWN FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FAR OUTWEIGH THE TOTAL INVESTMENT S BY NEARLY 7 TIMES. THUS, IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS CAN BE DEEMED TO BE MADE OUT O F NON-INTEREST BEARING CAPITAL AVAILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF ASSESSEE. THE REFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR TOWARDS PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENDITU RE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 340. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S FOODLINK S ERVICES (I) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.4620/MUM/2011, ORDER DATED 24.01.201 4 (COPY IN FILE) FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO MAT CH CORRESPONDING APPLICATION IN ITS INVESTMENTS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME, THE DISA LLOWANCE OF INTEREST COMPONENT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9. HE FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RU LE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES IS ALSO IMPROPER. IT IS SO BECAUSE THE DIVID END IS SELF-GENERATED INCOME FOR WHICH NO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ETC. PER SE ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS OFFERED A REASONAB LE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,007/-, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES. HE FURTHER ADDED THAT 5 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 THE CIT(A) HAD MADE A ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,0 00/- RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND THER EFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER DISALLOW ANCE IN THIS YEAR. HE NEXT CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION AS TO INC ORRECTNESS OF EXPENSES WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2011) 140 TTJ 73 (KOL) ( UO). HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INVOKE RULE 8D(2)(III) TO INVITE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCES BY INVOKING RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REV ENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PLEADED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PERUSED VARIOUS CASE LAWS CIT ED. TO BEGIN WITH, WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO EXPENSES DI RECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN QUANTIFIED AS P ER RULE 8D(2)(I) OF THE RULES. SECONDLY, PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEE N MADE TOWARDS INTEREST EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS HE LD BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER FORMULA LAID DOWN IN RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NON-INTEREST BEARING OWN FUNDS AS SOURCE FAR E XCEEDS THE CORRESPONDING APPLICATION OF FUNDS TOWARD INVESTMENTS. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN IN CURRED IS WELL FOUNDED AND DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. MERE UTILIZATION OF OD / C C ACCOUNTS FOR ROUTING PAYMENT TOWARDS INVESTMENT SHARES BY ITSELF HAS NO CONSEQUENCE AS SUCH. THE PAYMENT OUT OF THESE OVERDRAFTS ACCOUNT IS ONLY A W AY OF MAKING PAYMENT. THE OVERALL POSITION OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS, BORROW ED FUNDS, ETC. QUA THE CORRESPONDING INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX-FREE INCOME IS A RELEVANT FACTOR NEED TO BE BORNE IN MIND. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENU E THAT ANY DIRECT EXPENSES 6 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 INCLUDING INTEREST EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED. TH E PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (SUPRA). W E ARE ALSO SQUARELY GOVERNED BY THE DIRECT DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. REPORTED IN (2014) 366 IT R 505 (BOM), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN-P RINCIPLE, IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND INTEREST BEARING, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENT WOULD BE OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, IF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,59,897/- RETAINED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER RULE 8D( 2)(II) OF THE RULES IS NOT SUSTAINED IN LAW AND IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DE LETED. THUS, ON THIS COUNT, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 12. AS REGARDS THE NEXT LIMB OF DISALLOWANCE CARRIE D OUT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,007/- BEING ONE MONTH SALARY OF ITS ACCOUN TANT TOWARDS ESTIMATED EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TAX-FREE INCOME. THUS, ADMITTEDLY, CERTAIN EXPENDITURE IS ACCEPTED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE. IT IS THE QUANTUM OF ESTIMATION WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF DI SPUTE. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK PROVIDES THAT RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES WILL COM E INTO PLAY WHEN ESSENTIALLY THERE IS CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH QUANTIFICATION OF EXACTIN G STANDARDS ARE NOT POSSIBLE. RULE 8D(2)((III) PROVIDES STATUTORY FORMULA FOR COM PUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE TO COVER UP PROBABLE INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES RELATABLE TO TAX FREE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT ITS OWN ESTIMATION. OSTENSIBLY THEREFORE, PREFERENCE NEED T O BE GIVEN TO STATUTORY FORMULA OVER THE AD-HOC ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ONUS LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED IN EARNING THE TAX- FREE INCOME WHICH REMAINS UN-DISCHARGED. 7 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 13. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE D ISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES WHICH IS QUANTIFIED AT RS. RS.3,10,668/-. THUS, ON THIS COUNT, THE PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE FAILS. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS INTER ALIA ALSO TAKEN A LEGAL PLEA AND HAS OBJECTED TO AUTHORITY OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED A FINDING A FIND ING OF FACT THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF OD/CC ACCOUNT WHI CH ARE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND THESE ACCOUNTS ARE PRIMARY SOURCE OF FUND ING. IT IS ALSO BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED T HAT SOME DISALLOWANCE OF INDIRECT EXPENSES ARE CALLED FOR UNDER S. 14A AND Q UANTIFIED THE SAME AT RS. 35007/-. THUS THE FACTS ON RECORD WERE LOADED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE REQUISITE INGREDIEN TS OF SATISFACTION ABOUT INVOKING SECTION 14A(2) OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES WERE DULY PRESENT. THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF SOME AMOUNT TOWARDS TAX-FREE INCOME CLEARLY REINFORCES THE BELIEF ABOUT PRESENCE OF SOM E ELEMENT OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO TAX-FREE INCOME. RULE 8D(2)(III) PROVI DES FORMULA AND MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF ESTIMATED INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE EX PENSES, ETC. TOWARDS EARNING OF TAX-FREE INCOME. THE STATUTORY FORMULA C ANNOT BE ORDINARILY DEVIATED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE OBJECTIVELY PROVES ITS NON-APPLICATION. THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A. IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO THE AO TO APPLY HIS DISCRETION IN COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE OR MAKE AD -HOC DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. IT IS ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE AO ABOUT T HE CORRECTNESS OF ITS CLAIM ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE IN RELAT ION TO EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, THEN ONLY, REQUIREMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESCRIBED METHOD FOR COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D IS DISPEN SED WITH. ON FACTS, HAVING REGARD TO THE COLOSSAL INVESTMENTS AND DIVID END INCOME, NO COGENT BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ONE MONTH SALARY OF AN AC COUNTS PERSON IS DISCERNIBLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH C ORRECTNESS OF DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY IT. THE INGREDIENTS OF PRIMA FACIE SATIS FACTION CONTEMPLATED UNDER S. 8 ITA NO.1031/PN/2013 14A ARE THUS PRESENT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE MANDATE OF RULE 8D WILL THUS OPERATE. HENCE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUS TAINABLE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 08 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 08 TH OCTOBER, 2015. % & '() *)' / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %+ / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE