Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. M/s U.P Power Corp. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 152/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9286 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law; TDS; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 40(a)(ia); 201; 207

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DY. CIT RANGE 6 LUCKNOW (APP ELL ANT) APPELLANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: PER T.S.KAPOOR, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)- II, LUCKNOW, YEAR 2012- 13, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.9,97,27,12,640/ 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE I.T. ACT 1061 ON THES E PAYMENTS 2. THE COMMISSIONE LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,30,56,74,469/ SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DOES NOT USE THE WORD 'INCOME OF THE YEAR' BUT 'INCOME UNDER THE ACT' A CBDT'S CIRCULAR NO 05 OF 2014 STATES THAT THE EXPEN SES WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAV E TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012 - 13 M/S U.P. POWER CORP. LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN 14, ASHOK MARG LUCKNOW T AN /PAN : AAACU5088M (RESPONDENT) SHRI S. K. MADHUK CIT (DR) SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR, C.A. 19 09 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 10 2019 O R D E R T.S.KAPOOR, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF II, LUCKNOW, DATED 28/12/2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT 13, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.9,97,27,12,640/ - UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE I.T. ACT 1061 ON THES E 2. THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,30,56,74,469/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DOES NOT USE THE WORD 'INCOME OF THE YEAR' BUT 'INCOME UNDER THE ACT' A CBDT'S CIRCULAR NO 05 OF 2014 STATES THAT THE EXPEN SES WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAV E TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S U.P. POWER CORP. LTD. AAACU5088M AGAINST THE ORDER OF PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE I.T. ACT 1061 ON THES E R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DOES NOT USE THE WORD 'INCOME OF THE YEAR' BUT 'INCOME UNDER THE ACT' A ND CBDT'S CIRCULAR NO 05 OF 2014 STATES THAT THE EXPEN SES WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAV E TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 7 WHETHER ANY SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR NOT. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,97,27,12,640/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE SUBMI SSION OF THE LD. D.R. WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT S OURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND , HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 19/9/2016 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12, AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD D ELETED THE ADDITION, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATE D 19/9/2016, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROU GH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CI T(A), WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS.9,97,27,12,640 /- MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL, DATED 19/9/2016 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 0-11 AND 2011-12 AND DELETED THE ADDITION, OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4(4) I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE ADDITION OF RS.997,27,12,640/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY HON 'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 IN ITA NO. 273 & 274/LKW/2015 DATED 19.09.2016 AT PARAGRAP H 5 OF ITS ORDER HOLDING AS UNDER:- RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, WE ALLOW GROUNDS NO. 1.1 TO 1.4 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 PAGE 3 OF 7 THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF T HE ADDITION MADE BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT AND ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DELHI TANSCO LT D., [2015] 380 ITR 398 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT PAYMENT FOR, TRANSMISSION CHARGES O F ELECTRICITY BY THE ASSES-SEE DOES NOT ATTRACT SECTI ON 194J OF THE ACT, WHICH DECISION WAS CHALLENGED BY T HE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP WHICH DECISION IS REPORTED IN CIT(TDS) VS. DELHI TRANSCO LTD. [2016 380 ITR (ST.) 76. 4(5) RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF HO N'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.997,27,12,640/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS DELETED GIVIN G RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 5. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW ON T HE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,97,27,12,640/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AFORESAID PERIOD, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO, IN OUR OPINION, HAS RIGHTLY DELETED TH E ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED . 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.1,30,56,74,469/- MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE A CT, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION, PLACING RELIAN CE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 19/9/2016 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN THIS REGARD, ARE REPRODUCED H EREUNDER:- ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 PAGE 4 OF 7 5(4) I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE ADDITION OF RS.130,56,74,469/ - UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE AO MADE THE IMPUGNED AD DITION BY ADOPTING THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN RULE 8D WHEREA S THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT NO AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWABLE AS NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT DURING TH E RELEVANT PERIOD. 5(5) IN THIS CONNECTION A REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.88/2014 DATED 05.0 5.2014 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT: S. 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE CHAPTER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. HE NCE, WHAT S. 14A PROVIDES IS THAT IF THERE IS ANY INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE INCOME UNDER THE ACT, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOM E IS NOT AN. ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION, THE FINDING OF FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY TAX FREE INCOME. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TAX FREE INCOME, THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE WORKED O UT FOR DISALLOWANCE. THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A) & TRIBUNAL DOE S NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 5(5)(II) A REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISI ON OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S DELITE ENTERPRISES WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT RULED THAT: THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT AS T HE BORROWINGS HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE FIRM AND THE IN COME FROM THE FIRM WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(2A), THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 14A. THIS WAS REV ERSED BY THE CIT (A). ON APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE CIT (A) ON THE GROUND THAT AS THERE WAS NO EXEMPTION CLAIME D U/S 10(2A) BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO TAX-FREE IN COME, S. 14A COULD NOT APPLY. THE DEPARTMENT FILED AN APP EAL IN THE HIGH COURT IN WHICH IT ARGUED THAT AS THE PROFI TS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRM WAS EXEMPT U/ S 10(2A), THE INTEREST ON THE BORROWED FUNDS USED TO INVEST ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 PAGE 5 OF 7 IN THE FIRM WAS DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A. HELD BY THE H IGH COURT DISMISSING THE APPEAL: IN SO FAR AS QUESTION (A) IS CONCERNED, ON FACTS WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO (TAX-FREE) PROFIT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSE SSMENT YEAR. HENCE THE QUESTION AS FRAMED WOULD NOT ARISE 5(5)(III) I FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DE CIDED BY HON'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012 IN ITA NO. 273 & 274/LKW/2015 DATED 19.09.2016 AT PARAGRAPH 8 OF ITS ORDER HOLDING AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APP LIED RULE 14 AND MADE COMPUTATION UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RULES AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,46,94,84,666/-. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE TOOK OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 207 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND PAGE 2 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS SCHEDULE 14 OTHER INCOME AND CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO DIVIDEND INCOME AT ALL FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS, WE TAKE NOTE THAT THERE WA S NO EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THA T SINCE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S ECTION 14A OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. WE FIND THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/ S SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT IN TH E ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE AS PER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED, SO WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREFORE WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE. THUS GROUNDS NO. 2.1 TO 2.5 OF THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 5(6) THE DECISIONS AFORESAID LAY DOWN THE RULE OF L AW THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT EARNS INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. FOLLO WING THE DISCUSSION ABOVE AND RELYING OF THE CASE AUTHORITIE S DISCUSSED SUPRA THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.130,56,74,469/- MADE B Y THE AO ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 PAGE 6 OF 7 UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS DELETED GIVING RELI EF TO THE APPELLANT. 7. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,30,56,74,469/- MAD E UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DAT ED 19/09/2016 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DAT ED 19/09/2016 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE HON'BLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 08/03/2017, HAS REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL BY FRAM ING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW: 1) WHETHER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, IGNORING CLARIFICATIO N ISSUED BY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.02.20 14; REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14 A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2) WHETHER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFI ED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,46,94,84,666/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, IGNORING THAT RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A OF INCOME TAX ACT, PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE EVEN WHERE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR THE TAX-PAYER HAS NOT EARNED ANY EX EMPT INCOME. THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIB UNAL WITH THE DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER AND PASS FRESH O RDER ON ISSUE RAISED RELATING TO QUESTION NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE LIGHT OF JUD GMENT OF INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2015 IN THE CASE OF U.P. POWER CO RPORATION LIMITED VS. PR. CIT-2. WE FIND THAT HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2015, VIDE ORDER DATED 08/03/2017 , HAD REMITTED SIMILAR ISSUE TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECONSIDERATION T HE ISSUE AFRESH. WE FIND THAT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NO.152/LKW/2017 PAGE 7 OF 7 13/06/2018 HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFI CE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THOUGH LEARNED A . R. HAS TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY EXEMPT INCOME THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABL E FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BUT IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHOULD MAKE A FINDING OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE WAS HAVING ANY EXEMPT INCOME OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14 A AND THE MANNER OF DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA XOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ISSUE AND F ACTS ARE SIMILAR. HOWEVER, IN THIS YEAR THE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT ALLOW PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE WHOLE ADDITION WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE U/S 1 4A OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR EXAMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 14A AND THE MANNER OF DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13/06/2018 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, WE SET ASIDE TH E ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS CONTAINED IN ORDER DATED 13/06/2018. THEREFORE, GR OUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2019) SD/. SD/. [A. D. JAIN] [ T.S. KAPOOR ] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:04/10/2019 JJ/SINGH:1909