Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

ITA 1774/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1764 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT HALDAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , !', $ % BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. SHRI AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, 759/34, BHOSALE PAVOLLION, BHANDARKAR ROAD, PUNE 411 004. PAN : ABTPB8151F . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHIJIT HALDAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DATE OF HEARING : 19.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.05.2016 & / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, PUNE DATED 26.05.2014 RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN DELEING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.69,09,340/- COMPUTED U/R 8D OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES OUT OF INTEREST PAID HOLDING THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN IGNORING THAT THERE WAS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST PERIOD ON LOAN INV ESTED IN WIND MILLS AND INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS IN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, SHARES AND M UTUAL FUNDS CLAIMED EXEMPT. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE ON HELICOPTER EXPENSES TO 1/7 TH INSTEAD OF 1/5 TH AS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 2 ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOW ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON HELICOPTER TO 1/7 TH INSTEAD OF 1/5 TH OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOW ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON HELIPAD BUILDING TO 1/7 TH INSTEAD OF 1/5 TH OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS CONCERNING THE GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT BUSINE SS ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION AND POWER GENERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROPRIETARY CON CERNS VIZ. M/S AMIT CONSTRUCTIONS AND M/S SWAPNALI CONSTRUCTIONS AND M/ S AVINASH BHOSALE- WIND MILL. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN PARTN ERSHIP FIRMS VIZ. (A) M/S AVINASH CONSTRUCTION, (B) M/S AVI CONSTRUCTION AND (C) M/S SAHASTRAJIT PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOM E RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,40,07,140 /-. APART FROM TAXABLE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE EARNED DURING THE YEAR EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.9,18,58,570/- CONSISTING OF SHARE IN PROFIT OF F IRMS, DIVIDEND AND PPF INTEREST. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE AC T R.W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) WHICH WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.52,78,735/-. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT HE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,33,50,341/- ON LOAN OBTAINED FO R PURCHASE OF WINDMILLS. INCOME FROM WINDMILLS BUSINESS WERE OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEES WINDMILL BUSINESS. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE WORKING OUT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. SIMILAR LY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONSIDERED NEGATIVE BALANCES IN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS W HILE ARRIVING AT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT FOR WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANC E UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D TO RS.1,21,88,075/-. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 3 ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 3.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT IN THE CAPACITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL CARRIES ON DIFFERENT BUSINESSES BOTH AS A PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND ALSO AS A PROPRIETOR OF SEVERAL CONCERNS BEING M/S SNEHP URTI CONSTRUCTION, M/S AMIT CONSTRUCTIONS AND M/S AVINASH BHOSALE WIND FARM, WH OSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE MAINTAINED AND DRA WN UP SEPARATELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THEM TO BE ALL ONE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THUS HAS LINKED THE NEXUS OF THE INTEREST EXPEN DITURE TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD DO CL EARLY INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED THE ACCOUNTS SEPARATELY FO R ALL OF HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESSES WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THAT OF THE 'WIND FA RM' BUSINESS. THE P&L A/C AND THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE AFORESAID PROPRIETARY CONCERN CLEARLY INDICATES THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,33,50,341/- TO BANK OF INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN OF RS. 30 CRORES BY THE APPELLANT DUR ING THE EARLIER YEARS AS EVIDENT FROM THE SANCTION LETTER OF BANK OF INDIA DATED 18- 5-2006 ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT OF THE CREDIT FACILITY AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN IN THE ANNEXURE ATTACHED TO IT. THUS THE FACT THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS. 30 CRORES HAD EXCLUSIVELY BEEN ASSIGNED WITH RESPECT T O THE PURCHASE OF WINDMILL FROM M/S ENERCON BECOMES UNDISPUTED. THE APPELLANT HAS C REDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,41,20,095/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF POWER AND HAS A LSO SHOWN PROFIT OF RS. 5,83,12,441/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FROM THE WINDMILL BUSINESS. THEREFORE, ON FACT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THE AFORESAID INTEREST BE HELD TO BE IN ANY WAY TO BE RELATED TO THE EARNING OF EX EMPT INCOME EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A R W RULE 8D(2)(II) OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 69,09,340/- IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 3.4.1 THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONTESTED THE ABOVE ISSUE BEFORE THE ITAT PUNE IN APPELLANT'S CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE H ON'BLE ITAT, PUNE IN THEIR ORDER NO.2582/PN/2012 DATED 21.05.2014 HAS UPHELD T HE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 3.5 SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D (2)(III) OF RS. 52,78,735/- WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNE D, THE ONLY REASON FOR THE INCREASE OF THE AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON ACCOUNT OF NON- CONSIDERATION OF THE NEGATIVE CAPITAL BALANCE IN TH E HANDS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLANT WHILE WORKING OUT THE A VERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8 D(2)(III). THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT THUS WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,11,11,62,696/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AGAINST RS. 1,00,87,93,477/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE FORMULA AS PRESCRIBED U/R 8D(2)(III) REFERS TO THE 'AVERAGE VA LUE OF INVESTMENT' AND NOWHERE IT STATES THAT NEGATIVE BALANCES ARE TO BE CONSIDER ED FOR THE WORKING OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AND, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPIN ION THE 'AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT' MEANS AVERAGE VALUE OF ALL INVESTMENTS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THE N EGATIVE BALANCES IN THE CAPITAL/CURRENT ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM. A NEGATIVE BA LANCE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF A FIRM CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATIO N BE HELD AS AN INVESTMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SUCH MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NEGATIVE BALANCE WAS IN THE NAT URE OF INVESTMENT WHEREAS THE RULE SPEAKS OF INVESTMENT. THUS, THE A. O. HAS RIGHTLY NOT INCLUDED THE NEGATIVE BALANCE WHILE COMPUTING THE VALUE OF A VERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THUS THE EXCESS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 52,78,735/- AS WORKE D OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE UPHELD. 3.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, OUT OF THE TOTAL DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.1,21,88,075/- THE AMOUNT OF RS.69,09,340/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED AND THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE 4 ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 OF RS.52,78,735/- IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED PARTLY. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE A SSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO LOAN SANCTION LETTE R APPEARING AT PAGE NO.10 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE COPY OF THE BALANCE-SHEET AN D PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ETC. TO SUBMIT THAT THE INTEREST BEARING LOAN WAS S PECIFICALLY OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACQUISITION OF WINDMILL AND HAS BEEN EX CLUSIVELY DEPLOYED FOR PURCHASE OF WINDMILL FROM M/S ENERCON. THIS FACT I S UNDISPUTED. THE LD. AR STATED THAT WHEN THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN SPECI ALLY UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX THE INTEREST I NCURRED CANNOT BE APPORTIONED UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE AND THE TAXABLE IN COME. HE NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DELIBERATED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 2582/PN/2012, ORDER DATED 21.05.2014. 8. ON PERUSAL OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT TH E ISSUE CONCERNED NAMELY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ATTRIBU TABLE TO TAX FREE INCOME UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) IS SQUARELY C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2582/PN/2012 (SU PRA). IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INTEREST EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE I N ANY WAY RELATED TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIREC TLY AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE H AS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING, THE A CTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R. W. RULE 8D ON THIS SCORE 5 ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, G ROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF HELICOPTE R EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,60, 33,365/- AND DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD HELICOPTER EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 1/5 TH I.E. RS.72,06,673/- OF THE TOTAL HELICOPTER EXPENS ES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USER AND NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE UPTO 1/7 TH IN ALL OTHER PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON SIMILA R POINT, THE ITAT HAS RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT TO 1/7 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ALSO COME UP IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I N ITA NO.2582/PN/2012 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF TOTAL EXPENDITU RE ON HELICOPTER WAS RESTRICTED TO 1/7 TH OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT TOWARDS NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT TH E IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.2582/PN/2012 (SUPRA). THE OPERATIVE PARAS CONCERNING THE ISSUE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 3. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE O F 1/5TH OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON HELICOPTER INSTEAD OF 1/7TH. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06, HAS RESTRICTE D THE DISALLOWANCE ON HELICOPTER EXPENDITURE TO 1/7TH. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT SPECIAL BENCH DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF GULATHI SAREE CENTRE (SUPRA) OR THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAYUR KOTHARI (SUPRA) ARE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PERSONAL CARS; WH EREAS THE PUNE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD (SUPRA) RELATES TO THE AVIATION VEHICLES, WHICH IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE AS WHETHER IT IS THE CASE OF A HELICOPTER OR AIRCRAFT SHOULD NOT MAKE AN Y DIFFERENCE. THUS, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GULATHI SAREE CENTRE (SUPRA ) OR THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAYUR KOTHARI (SUPRA) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE A S THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE APPEALS ARE THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE CLAIM S INVOLVING THE PERSONAL CARS. FURTHER, WE MAY MENTIONED THAT THE REVENUE IS NO FAIR IN ADOPTING 20% (1/5TH OF THE CLAIM) IN RESPECT OF THE BELL HELICO PTER AND IN ADOPTING 30% (NEARLY L/3TH OF THE CLAIM) IN RESPECT OF THE CESSN A AIRCRAFT AND IN OUR OPINION, IT CONSTITUTES AN ARTIFICIAL DIFFERENCE. I T IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE SECTION 38(2) REFERS TO THE EXPRESSION 'FA IR' AND NEITHER OF THE IT AUTHORITIES I.E. AO OR CIT(A) HAVE UNDERTAKEN ANY E XERCISE TO ESTABLISH THE SAID FAIRNESS IN ADOPTING THE SAID PERCENTAGES. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBS TANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSES. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTAN CES BETTER KNOWN 6 ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS SURRENDER OF CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF 1/7TH OF THE TOTAL CLAIMS RS.93,96,771/- (I.E. RS.66,04,980/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLES AND RS.27,91,791/- ON ACCO UNT OF AVIATION EXPENSES). AT THIS POINT OF TIME, IN OUR OPINION, THE ONUS HAS SHIFTED TO THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAID SURREND ER IS INCORRECT AND ESTIMATIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE FAIR WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF SECTION 38(2) OF THE ACT. FAIRNESS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN MATTERS OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE DISALLOWANCES, WHEN SECTION 3 8(2) OF THE ACT INVOKED. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DONE ANY PROBE INDEPE NDENTLY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEES OFFER IS UNFAIR AND HIS ESTIMATIONS ARE FAIR. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMA TIONS MADE BY THE AO, WHICH ARE CONFIRMED IN CASE OF THE CESSNA AIRCR AFT AND ALTERED IN CASE OF BELL HELICOPTER ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PUNE BENCH DECI SION, WHICH IS BINDING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT THE OFFER OF T HE ASSESSEE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 1/7TH OF THE CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF BOTH BELL HELICOPTER AND THE CESSNA AIRCRAFT, IS REASONABLE A ND FAIR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED. THUS, THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 3.1 NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLE DGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONIN G, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHO HAS RESTR ICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON HELICOPTER EXPENDITURE TO 1/7TH. WE UPHOLD THE SAM E. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE FIND NO INF IRMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS SCORE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.4 CONCERNS THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON HELICOPTER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF R S.2,34,42,041/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED OVER THE PAST SEVERAL ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT USAGE OF HELICOPTER/A IRCRAFT FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES IS VERY MUCH A FACT. THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING IS THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE. IN PRINCIP LE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS TAKEN A STAND THAT HELICOPTER IS ALSO USED FOR PERS ONAL PURPOSE AND HAS ALWAYS ACCEPTED DISALLOWANCE OF 1/7 TH OF SUCH ALLOWANCE. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS DEPRECIATION AT 1/7 TH OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 12. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE F IND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS PERSONAL USER OF HELICOPTER AND AIRCRAFT HA S BEEN RESTRICTED TO 1/7 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. EXTENDING THIS LOGIC OF EST IMATION TOWARDS PERSONAL 7 ITA NO.1774/PN/2014 ELEMENT IN DEPRECIATION, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 1/7 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISS ED. 13. GROUND NO.5 CONCERNS THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON HELIPAD BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED DE PRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10% ON HELIPAD BUILDING TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,97,3 11/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION QUANTIFIED AT RS.3,59,46 2/-. 14. ON THE SIMILAR PREMISE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION TOWARDS PERSONAL USER ON HELIPAD BU ILDING ALSO REQUIRES TO BE RESTRICTED TO 1/7 TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 25 TH MAY, 2016. & ' () *+( / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. &, / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE