Sabarmati River Front Development Corpn.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT,Circle-8, Ahmedabad

ITA 1394/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1775 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 40(a)(ia); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NOS: 1394/AHD/2015 & 1297/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13) SABARMATI RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, RAMANBHAI PATEL BHAVAN, WEST ZONE OFFICE OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL , USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACCS 1188C APPELLANT BY : SMT. ARTI N. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LALIT P. JAIN, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 01 -07-201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 -07-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABAD DATED 11.03.20 15 & 22.03.2016 PERTAINING TO A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13. SINCE ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEREFORE FOR ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 2 THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISPOSE OF TH IS ORDER BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST OF ALL, WE WOULD LIKE TO ITA NO. 1394/AHD/201 5 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS )-9, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,12,20,240/- AS PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEAL S)-9, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,62,608/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS )-9, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY DISALLOWING INTE REST EXPENDITURE OF RS.33,87,663/- AS DEDUCTION U/S.57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT AGAINST THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH SIDES OF SABARMATI RIVER. DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THIS PROJECT INCURRED D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO WORK IN PROG RESS ACCOUNT. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT 50% OF CERTAIN EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TRANSFE RRED TO WIP AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 4. IN REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE PROJECT OF DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH SIDES OF SABARMATI RIVER IN THE CITY OF AHM EDABAD AND THE SAID PROJECT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AS PER NOTE B(1) TO NOTE S TO ACCOUNTS THE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF DEVELOPMENT WORK BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANY IS TO BE WORKED OUT ON COMPLETION OF DEVELO PMENT WORK AND REALIZATION OF PROCEEDS FROM LEASE/SALE OF DEVELOPE D LAND OF THE SABARMATI ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 3 RIVERFRONT PROJECT BY AMC. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION, NO SALE/LEASE HAS TAKEN PLACE NOR HAS ANY ADVANCES/DEPOSITS BEEN RECEIVED. THUS, NO INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ACTIVITIES TAKEN BY THE COMPANY HAS B EEN OFFERED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE VERY BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING, ALL THE EXPENSES HAVING LONG TERM BEARI NG UPON THE PROJECT ( OTHER THAN DAY TO DAY EXPENSES) MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO WI P. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF SCHEDULE 1 OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS, IT IS SEEN THAT A NU MBER OF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT WHICH ARE NOT IN THE N ATURE OF DAY TO DAY OR REGULAR EXPENSES. FOR EXAMPLE ADVERTISEMENT AND PU BLICITY AND LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL FEES DEBITED IN P & L A/C ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF DAY TO DAY EXPENSES AND ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT HAVING A LONG TERM BEARING UPON IT. THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES SHO ULD BE TRANSFERRED TO BALANCE SHEET AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED IN THE P & L A/ C. 5. IN REPLY TO THIS NOTICE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FOLLOWI NG REPLY: '1. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE, WE ARE IN RE CEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED 16.09.2013, WHEREIN YOU HAVE GIVEN TO THE REFERENCE OF OUR LETTER DATED 16.08.2013, WHEREIN WE HAVE STATED THAT THE DEVELOP MENT OF THE PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION STAGE AND ALL THE EXPENDITURES RELATIN G TO THIS PROJECT INCURRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN TRANS FERRED TO WORK-IN-PROGRESS ACCOUNT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR NEITHER ANY SALE OR LEASE HAS TAKEN PLACE NOR ANY ADVANCE OR BOOKING DEPOSIT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IN LETTER DATED 16.09.2013, IN PARA 6, YOU HAVE STATED THAT O UR CONTENTION IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,52,57,043/-HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BEING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. IN THIS REGA RD, WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT DIRECT EXPENDITURES IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO WORK-IN- PROGRESS; WHEREAS INDIRECT EXPENDITURES LIKE STAFF SALARY, TELEPHONE, VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES, SECURITY CHARGES, OFFICE EXPENSES, REFRESH MENT, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE ETC. ARE CAPITALIZED TO THE EXTENT OF 5 0% AND 50% HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH IS CONSTANTLY F OLLOWED BY THE COMPANY SINCE COMMENCEMENT OF SABARMATI RIVER FRONT PROJECT AND T HIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHA RTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA. ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 4 WE HAVE IN OUR LETTER DATED 13.09.2013 DULY EXPLAIN ED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 2. THIS STAND HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY TAKEN BY THE COMPANY AN D THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE AR.' 6. BUT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,12,20,240/- AS PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES. 7. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN WHICH ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS SUSTAINED. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGN ED ORDER. UNDISPUTEDLY, ACTUAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT YET COMMENC ED AND SAME ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES. 9. WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF ITAT WHEREIN ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS AFFIRMED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TION: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS NO B USINESS. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN ONLY INCOME FROM TENDER FEES AND INTEREST INC OME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. EVEN ASSESSEE'S PLEA ACCEPTED T HAT KITE FLYING FESTIVAL EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO IT NOT AMC, NO EVIDENCE HA S BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THOSE EXPENSES AS DIRECTLY BENEFITTE D THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, NO BUSINESS HAS BEEN COMMENCED BY THE APPE LLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN CAPITALIZING THE ALL THE EXPENSES IN WORK IN PROGRESS EXCEPT LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AND FILING FEES. THE ONLY RECEIPT OF RS.1,85,959/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AFTER CHARGING OF RELA TED EXPENSES OF FACILITATING THE AMC FOR ITS 330 MLD WATER INTAKE WELL PROJECT. THE PUBLICITY EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED TO BE RELATED TO SAVARMATI RIVER DEVELOPMEN T PROJECT. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BOOKED OR TAKING ANY ADVANCE FOR TAKING OF ANY RESIDENTIAL SPACE OR IT HAS NOT ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 5 STARTED TO ALLOW ANY PUBLIC UTILITY FOR GENERAL PUB LIC. THIS PUBLICITY IS NOT RELATED TO ANY GENERATING OF REVENUE OF THE COMPANY. THE CA SE LAW REFERRED BY THE ID. CIT(A) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE AS NO BUSINESS START ED, NO EXPENSES IS ALLOWED. THE CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NAVSARI COTTON & SILK MILLS (1982) 135 ITR 546, WHEREIN HON'BLE COURT HAD GIVEN EIGHT POSITIVE AND THIRTEEN NEGATIVE TESTS FO R ALLOWABLITY/DISALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE U/S. 37 OF THE IT ACT, IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHANDULAL KESHAVLAL & CO. (1960) 38 ITR 601, HELD THAT 'IF THE EXPENSE IS INCURRED FOR FOSTERING THE BUSINESS OF ANOTHER ONLY OR IS MADE BY WAY OF DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS OR IS WHOLLY GRATUIT OUS OR FOR SOME IMPROPER OR OBLIQUE PURPOSE OUTSIDE THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE N EXPENSES IS NOT DEDUCTABLE.' THUS, WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD 'ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES' IS NOT INCURR ED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. AS SUCH, NO INCOME HAS BEEN BOOKED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON PUBLICITY AT RS.55 ,06,198/- AS PER P&L ACCOUNT NOT RS.65,06,198/-. THUS, CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN ENHAN CING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS HEAD. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN GROUND NO.1. 10. THUS, IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN PARITY WITH THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 2 32/AHD/2010, 1790/AHD/2011 & 1187/AHD/2012 DATED 31.07.2013, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. NOW WE COME TO 2 ND GROUND WITH REGARD TO LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,62,608/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 6 12. ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN PAYMENT BUT HAS NOT DEDUC TED THE TAX OF THE FOLLOWING: NAME OF PARTY PAN ADDRESS AMOUNT OF EXPENSE WHETHER TDS DEDUCTED OR NOT IF YES, AMOUNT OF TDS NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THE PARTY REAS ON FOR NON- DEDU CTION OF TDS CEPT NOT CEPT UNIVERSITY, 100000 NO FOR THE EVENT UNIVERSITY AVAILABLE KASTURBHAI LALBHAI SPONSORSHIP FOR CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY ENGINEERS DAY ROAD, NAVRNAGPUR A, FUNCTION AHMEDABAD -38009 GUJARAT NOT 2 FLOOR, B WING, 132000 NO AS SHARE FOR URBAN DEVELOPME NT AVAILABLE GUJARAT ORGANISING SEMINAR ON URBAN COMPANY DEVELOPMENT HELD LTD. ON 12-6-10 CENTRE FOR NOT RESEARCH HOUSE, 85000 NO 0 MEDIA AVAILABLE SAKET COMMUNITY WITH AHMEDABAD STUDIES CENTRE. NEW DELHI- CMS VATAVARAN 110017 NENA SIGNS AAGFN 7336J 102, ASHIVAD COM PLEX, B/H. SARDAR PATEL SEVA SAMAJ HALL, MITHAKHALI, AHMEDABAD 35500 NO 0 FOR INSTALLATION OF BANNER FLEX WITH STAND AT NIRMA UNIVERSITY EXHIBITION ON 4-5 FEBRUARY, 2011 ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 7 -38006 NEHA SIGNS AAGFN 7336J 102, ASHIVAD COMPLEX, B/H. SARDAR PATEI SEVA SAMAJ HALL, MITHAKHALI. AHMEDABAD -38006 10108 NO 0 FOR INSTALLATION OF FRAME - GLASS MS WITH BANNER FLEX WITH STAND AT NIRMA UNIVERSITY EXHIBITION ON 4-5 FEBRUARY, 2011 TOTAL 362608 ..... 13. AND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE COULD NO T FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF S AID PAYMENT AND PAYMENT OF RS. 3,62,608/- WAS DISALLOWED. 14. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 15. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGN ED ORDER. SINCE THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT IS INCLUSIVE IN THE GROUND NO. 1, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND AT THIS STAGE, SAME CANNOT BE ADJ UDICATED HOWEVER STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. NOW WE COME TO NEXT GROUND WITH REGARD TO THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY DISALLOWING INTEREST EX PENDITURE OF RS. 33,87,663/- AS DEDUCTION U/S. 57(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 17. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY S EARNED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,87,663/- ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATI ON AS INCOME FROM OTHER ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 8 SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BORROWED FUNDS FROM H UDCO FOR WHICH THE COMPANY PAID INTEREST OF RS. 20,99,91,930/-. THE CO MPANY DID NOT CLAIM IT AS EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO IN THE RETURN. VIDE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 5 TH AUGUST, 2013, ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED FOLLOWING NOTICE : '-AS PER NOTE 3 TO STATEMENT OF INCOME SUBMITTED BY YOU, YOUR COMPANY INTENDS TO CLAIM INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.20,99,91,930/- UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' U/S. 57(III) 'AT APPROPRIATE TIME'. PLEASE FURNISH JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, LEGALITY INV OLVED AND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 2009-10 ' 18. IN REPLY, ASSESSEE STATED AS FOLLOWS: 'THE COMPANY HAS EARNED INTEREST OF RS.33,87,663/- O N FDRS OF THE BANKS. RECEIPTS INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. INTEREST IS EARNED ON FDRS MADE OUT OF FUNDS BORROWED ON WHICH CORPORATION HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS.20,99,91,930/- AND THEREFORE, THE SA ME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION FROM INTEREST EARNED ON FDRS. HOWEVER, IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME, INTEREST EARNED IS OFFERED TO TAX AND BY WAY OF NOTE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID HAS BEEN MADE AND, THEREFORE, WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. REL IANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF J. F. LABORATORIES LTD. V ITO [96 IT D 448 (MUM)]. 19. BUT LD. A.O. WAS NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT INTEREST OF RS. 20,99,91,930/- HAS BEEN PAID ON TH E LOAN RAISED FROM HUDCO AND OTHER CORPORATIONS, AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD OF INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE DURING CONSTRUCTION. I T IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN BORROWED FOR INVE STMENTS. RATHER THE LOAN HAS BEEN RAISED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY. THEREFO RE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZ INDI A LTD. 284 ITR 323 : ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 9 20. AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE SIMILAR CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS AGAIN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON SIMILAR RA TIO OF DECISION RELIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSE. 21. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 22. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMPUGN ED ORDER. SIMILAR MATTER ALSO CAME BEFORE THE ITAT FOR A.YS. 2006-07, 2007-0 8 & 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 232/AHD/2010, 1790/AHD/2011 & 1187/AHD/2012 CO-ORDI NATE BENCH SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO PASS THE SPECIFIC ORDER AND BRING IN OUT CLEARLY APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT AND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BORROWED FUND HAD NOT INDEED BEEN UTILIZED IN PURCHASING FDS. THUS, IN PARITY WITH THE ABOVE SAID ITAT ORDER , WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THIS MATTER AS PER ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH DIRECTIONS IN THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT. 23. NOW WE COME TO ITA NO. 1297/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012 -13. IN THIS APPEAL, SOLELY GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T EXPENDITURE OF RS. 36,51,287/- BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS DEDUCTION U/S. 57(III) OF I.T. AGAINST INTEREST EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. 24. IN CONNECTED ITA NO. 1394/AHD/2015 SIMILAR ISSUE WE HAVE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO PASS THE SPECIFIC ORDER A ND BRING IN OUT CLEARLY APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT AND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BORROWED FUND HAD NOT INDEED BEEN UT ILIZED IN PURCHASING FDS. ITA NO. 1394 /AHD/15 & 1297/AHD/16 . A.YS. 2011-1 2-2012-13 10 THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ALL THE YEARS. BY FOLLOWI NG THE ORDERS OF RESPECTED CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE SAME I SSUE, MATTER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THUS, IN PARITY WITH THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT( A). 25. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS AND STATED ABOVE THEREIN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11- 07- 2019 SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 11/07/2019 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD