Kunal Shelters Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Pune

ITA 1271/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5867 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VITTHAL M BHOSALE
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 KUNAL SHELTERS PVT. LTD., KUNAL HOUSE, OPP: KAMALA NEHRU PARK, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE-411004. PAN : AAACK8711F ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHAS BORA REVENUE BY : SHRI VITTHAL M. BHOSALE / DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.09.2020 / ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VP : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-7, PUNE DATED 24.02.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUND NO.1 AND 2 INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH IS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,64,256/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 29.09.2011 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. IN THE SAID RETURN, DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.25,413/- AND SHARE OF PROFIT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF RS.1,41,67,160/- EARNED DURING THE YEAR UNDER 2 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 CONSIDERATION WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME HOWEVER WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHARE OF PROFIT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ALTHOUGH WAS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS A PARTNER, THE SAME HAD SUFFERED TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENSES IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME WERE INCURRED BY IT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, HE WORKED OUT THE INTEREST EXPENSES AND OTHER COMMON EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AT RS.16,08,739/- AND RS.8,58,611/- RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,67,350/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D IN PRINCIPLE OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVING MAINTAINED MIXED FUNDS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS BY APPLYING RULE 8D WAS CALLED FOR. HE, HOWEVER, FOUND SOME MISTAKES IN THE WORKING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO RS.8,05,645/-. HE, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER COMMON EXPENSES AT RS.8,58,611/- AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,64,256/-. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RELEVANT BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS ON 3 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 31.03.2011 (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK), TOTAL OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES TO THE TUNE OF RS.30.73 CRORES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEREAS THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS INCLUDING THE INVESTMENT MADE IN DEBENTURES OF M/S KUNAL SPACES PVT. LTD. AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ONLY RS.14.77 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE THUS HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT TIME TO MAKE THE SAID INVESTMENT OF RS.14.77 CRORES AND THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUT OF ITS OWN FREE FUNDS AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD., 313 ITR 340. THE INVESTMENT CAPABLE OF EARNING EXEMPT INCOME THUS WAS ENTIRELY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY OUT OF ITS OWN FREE FUNDS AND THERE BEING NO UTILIZATION OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING THE SAID INVESTMENT, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER COMMON EXPENSES BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(III), LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LIMITED CONTENTION THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE WORKED OUT BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD ACTUALLY FETCHED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS AS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THIS CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DULY SUPPORTED INTER ALIA BY THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FINEOTEX CHEMICAL LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.5412/MUM/2016 DATED 27.02.2018), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER COMMON EXPENSES BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS 4 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 ON WHICH EXEMPT INCOME WAS ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.22,17,414/-. 7. AS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE INVESTMENT OF RS.17 CRORES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DEBENTURES OF M/S KUNAL SPACES PVT. LTD. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAD AVAILED INTEREST BEARING LOAN OF RS.2.22 CRORE ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS.30,23,059/- WAS PAID. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY COULD HAVE UTILIZED THE FUNDS INVESTED IN DEBENTURES TO SQUARE UP THE LOANS AND AVOIDED PAYMENTS OF ANY INTEREST. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.30,23,059/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOANS TAKEN WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DEBENTURES OF M/S KUNAL SPACES PVT. LTD. WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. HE, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,23,059/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO RS.22,17,414/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 14A R.W. RULE8D(2)(II) WAS SUSTAINED BY HIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,05,645/-. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS ALREADY NOTED BY US FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS ON 31.03.2011, SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES TO THE TUNE OF RS.30.73 CRORES WERE 5 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND THE SAME BEING SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS INCLUDING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE DEBENTURES OF M/S KUNAL SPACES PVT. LTD., WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CALLED FOR AS THERE WAS NO CASE OF UTILIZATION OR DIVERSION OF THE INTEREST BEARING LOAN BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND ALLOW GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 9. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS INCREASE OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION BY RS.3 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS WORKING DIRECTORS WERE PROFESSIONALS HAVING EXPERIENCE IN THEIR FIELD AND REMUNERATION OF RS.18 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THEM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING SERVICES AS PER THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AND SITUATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE NOTED THAT THERE WAS DECLINE IN THE OVERALL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE INCREASE OF 20% IN DIRECTORS REMUNERATION WITHOUT ANY PROPER JUSTIFICATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS OUT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL 6 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE REMUNERATION OF RS.18 LAKHS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY TO ITS DIRECTORS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DULY JUSTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS THE SERVICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE REMUNERATION SO PAID BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY TO ITS DIRECTORS WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS AN INCREASE OF 20% WHILE THE OTHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD DECLINED. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SHOW THAT THE INCREASE OF 20% IN THE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SO AS TO DISALLOW THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION AND DELETING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THE GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 12. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,14,202/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF RENTAL EXPENSES. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A RENT OF RS.27 LAKHS FOR THE OFFICE PREMISES TAKEN ON LEASE AT KUNAL HOUSE, OPP. KAMALA NEHRU PARK, OFF BHANDARKAR ROAD, PUNE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF THE BUILDING WAS 7500 SQ.FT. OUT OF WHICH THE AREA OF 2363 SQ.FT. WAS GIVEN TO M/S INDIA BULLS ON RENT OF RS.39 PER SQ.FT. PER MONTH. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS LEFT WITH AN AREA OF ABOUT 5000 SQ.FT. AND EVEN IF THE RENT OF RS.30 PER SQ.FT. PER MONTH AS STATED TO BE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 WAS TO BE CONSIDERED, THE TOTAL RENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.1,50,000/- PER MONTH OR RS.18 LAKHS PER ANNUM. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE BALANCE INTEREST OF RS.9 LAKHS AS EXCESSIVE OR UNPROVED AND MADE DISALLOWANCE TO THAT EXTENT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,14,202/- FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPHS NO.9.5.2 TO 9.7 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER :- 9.5.2 IN THE BUILDING KUNAL HOUSE BALANCE AREA OF (7500 MINUS 2363= 5137SQFT.) IS OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT. THE INDIA BULLS IS PAYING RENT AT 39 PER SQFT. THEREFORE, THE MARKET RENT PAYABLE IS CONSIDERED AS RS. 39 PER SQFT. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE PAID RS. 2,00,343/- X 12=24,04,116/- (5137X39X12) WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS PAID RS. 27 LACS TO 7 PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,95,884/-. THESE PERSONS ARE UNDOUBTEDLY PERSONS COVERED U/S. 40A(2)(B). THIS CALCULATION SHOWS THAT APPELLANT HAS PAID EXCESSIVE RENT TO PERSONS COVERED U/S. 40A(2)(B) OVER AND ABOVE THE MARKET RENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, INVOCATION OF SECTION 40A(2) BY AO IS CORRECT. 9.6 THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL)(P)(LTD.)(SUPRA) DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT BETWEEN TWO CORPORATE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS TRANSACTION BETWEEN COMPANY AND INDIVIDUALS/HUF. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE REVENUE NEUTRAL IS DEVOID OF MERITS AS THE COMPANY HAS TO FACE TAXES AT TWO STAGES, FIRSTLY AT THE STAGE OF EARNING AND AT THE STAGE OF DIVIDEND. IN CASE OF INDIVIDUAL ON APPLICATION OF INCOME THERE IS NO TAXES. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE INDO SAUDI SERVICES(TRAVEL)(P)(LTD.)(SUPRA) DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 9.7 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PAID MUNICIPAL TAXES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,87,696/- FOR OFFICE TAKEN ON RENT AND RS. 1,30,622/- FOR UNSOLD FLATS. APPARENTLY, THESE TWO ITEMS ARE ALSO TO BE INCLUDED TO DETERMINE EXCESSIVE RENT PAID BY THE APPELLANT AS M/S. INDIA BULLS ARE NOT PAYING MUNICIPAL TAXES. THEREFORE, TOTAL EXCESSIVE RENT PAID BY THE APPELLANT COMES TO RS. 2,95,884/- (RATE DIFFERENCE) PLUS RS. 2,87,696/-+ RS. 1,30,622/-(MUNICIPAL TAXES)= RS. 7,14,202/-. ACCORDINGLY, EXCESSIVE RENT PAID TO PERSONS COVERED U/S. 40A(2)(B) COMES TO RS. 7,14,202/-. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL AREA TAKEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR ITS OFFICE WAS 7500 SQ.FT. AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION OR MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO TAKE IT AS ABOUT 5000 SQ.FT.. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT IF THE RATE OF RENT ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS APPLIED TO THE TOTAL AREA OF 7500 SQ.FT. ACTUALLY TAKEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR UTILIZATION OF ITS OFFICE, THE RENT OF RS.27 LAKHS PAID WOULD BE REASONABLE AND THERE BEING NOTHING EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. 8 ITA NO.1271/PUN/2017 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS CLAIM NOW BEING MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE TOTAL AREA OF 7500 SQ.FT. TAKEN ON RENT REQUIRES VERIFICATION SINCE THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS MATTER MAY THEREFORE BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUCH VERIFICATION. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR AND SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ACTUAL AREA TAKEN ON THE RENT FOR ITS OFFICE PREMISES. GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT / PUNE; / DATED : 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-7, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-6, PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.