BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI

ITA 18/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2480 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Assessee Lawyers: J P BAIRAGRA LD
• Keywords: Business income; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.18/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED D-73/1, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA MIDC ROAD, TURBHE NAVI MUMBAI-400 705 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4) MUMBAI ./PAN : AAACB-2727-N ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '# ! / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.567/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4) ROOM NO.658, 6 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI -400 020 / VS. BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED D-73/1, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA MIDC ROAD, TURBHE NAVI MUMBAI-400 705 ./PAN : AAACB-2727-N ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '# ! / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : J.P.BAIRAGRA, LD. AR RE VENUE BY : D.G. PANSARI, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/10/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/11/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 2 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO. 567/MUM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2010-11 WHICH CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-50 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)50/IT-249/2015-16 DATED 15/02/2016 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ANNULLING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ME RELY ON SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT WHILE UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENING OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 IS VALID IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT' 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW ,THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSE E OUGHT TO HAVE SET OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS(STT PAID) W ITH THE AVAILABLE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN(STT PAID) FIRST WHICH IS TAXABLE @15% AND NOT WITH THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (NON-STT PAID) WHICH IS TAX ABLE @30% THEREBY RESULTING IN PAYING LOWER TAX ON THE SHORT TERM CAP ITAL GAIN AND RESULTING IN THE LOSS TO THE REVENUE.' THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI [AO] UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 19/01/2016 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.3687.64 LACS TAX ABLE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- NO. NATURE OF INCOME AMOUNT (RS.) RATE OF TAX 1. BUSINESS INCOME RS.27,29,33,058/- NORMAL RATE OF TAX 2. SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (STT PAID) RS.6,14,37,510/- 15% 3. SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (NON- STT PAID) RS.3,43,94,428/- 30% ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 3 THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1 5/10/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.958.50 LACS WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 30/12/2011 AT RS.2687.65 LACS. THE ASSESSED FIGU RES U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN REVISED TO RS.3687.65 LACS AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. OUT OF THE SAME, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2729.33 LACS IS SHOWN TO BE TAXED AT NORMAL RATES WHEREAS THE BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS.958.31 LACS REPRESENTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS SHOWN TO BE TAXED AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF 15%. FROM THE AFORESA ID FACTS, IT EMERGES THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE RESULTED INTO AP PLICATION OF HIGHER RATE OF TAX @30% ON CERTAIN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS [STCG] OF RS.343.94 LACS AS AGAINST 15% ASSESSED U/S 143(3). HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN OVERALL ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 2. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 21/04/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STAT UTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2). THE REASONS FOR REOPENING AS EXTRACTED ON PAGE NUMBER 2 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED SINCE THERE WAS INCORRECT SET-OFF OF BROUGHT FORWAR D SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSSES-SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX PAID (STT PAID) WITH SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (NON-STT PAID) WHICH WERE TAXABLE AT REGULAR RATE OF 30%. ACCORDING THE LD. AO, THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN S ET-OFF FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (STT PAID) WHICH WERE TAXABLE AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF 15%. IN OTHER WORDS, LD. AO OPINED THAT THE SET- OFF OF THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE FIRST FROM STCG (STT PAID) WHICH WERE TAXABLE @15% AND THEREAFTER FROM STCG (NON-STT PAID) WHICH WERE TAXABLE AT HIGHER RATE OF 30%. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CULMINATED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER WHICH RESULTED I NTO APPLICATION OF ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 4 HIGHER RATE OF TAX OF 30% TO STCG (NON STT PAID) AMOUNTING TO RS.343.94 LACS. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME ON LE GAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS ON MERITS WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/10/2016 WHEREIN LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEING BAD IN LAW, BY OBSE RVING AS UNDER:- 5.3.2 I FIND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH TH AT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT IN DISCLOSING THE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS. HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACT. THE AO FORMED HIS BELIEF THAT APPELLANT'S INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THESE F ACTS WERE ALREADY CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS PAS SED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. I ALSO FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT W AS REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. BUT AS PER THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 147, ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS: I) THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING THE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS OR, II) ANY INCOME IN RELATION TO ANY ASSET LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 5.3.3 THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE REOPENING IS BAD I N LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, I ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. THUS, I ALLOW THE 1 ST AND THE 3 RD GROUNDS OF APPEAL. AT THE SAME TIME, THE GROUNDS, ON MERITS, WERE ALLO WED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7.8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT. SECTION 70(2) DOES NOT DEBAR THE ASSESSEE FROM SETTING OFF SHORT TERM CAPI TAL LOSS SUFFERED FROM TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK E XCHANGES AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN REALIZED FROM OFF-MARKET TRANSACTIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH RESTRICTION IN THE ACT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISI ONS WHICH IS MOST FAVORABLE TO THE TAX PAYER IS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED WHICH IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION IN LAW WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CLARIFIED IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO 26(LXXXVI-3)(F.N O.4(53)-IT/54) DATED 7.07.1955. THEREFORE, I ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL . AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 5 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS JUSTIFIED WHERE NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL CAME TO HIS POSSESSION TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS THE REASON TO BELIEVE IS ON ACCOUNT OF MERE CHANGE OF O PINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS ALREADY EXAMINED ALL THE MATERIAL W HILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3). 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS JUSTIFIED WHEN T HE A.O. JUST RELIED ON THE DETAILS, STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND THE DETAILS OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED THE PART OF WHICH SET-OFF AGAINST THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS WHICH ARE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND EXAMINED BY A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 143(3). 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND PERUSED. F IRST, WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT JURISDICTION ACQUIRED BY THE LD. AO FOR THE IMPUGNED AY. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY ASSESSED U/S 143(3). IT IS NOTED THA T LD. CIT(A) FELL IN ERROR TO NOTE THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INIT IATED BEYOND FOUR YEARS SINCE IMPUGNED AY UNDER APPEAL IS 2010-11 AND REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 21/04 /2014 I.E. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOT BE YOND 4 YEARS AS WRONGLY NOTED BY LD. CIT(A). BE THAT AS THE CASE MA Y BE, WE FIND THAT THE ONLY CONDITION ENVISAGED BY LAW, UNDER SUCH A S ITUATION, TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS THAT LD. AO HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT. THE REASONS MUST BE BASED ON CERTAIN TANGIBLE MATERIAL / INFORM ATION COMING TO THE POSSESSION OF LD. AO WHICH SUGGEST POSSIBLE ESCAPEM ENT OF TAX. HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTUAL MATRIX, IT EMERGES THAT T HERE WAS NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF L D. AO SUBSEQUENT TO COMPLETION OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT SO AS TO JUSTIFY R EOPENING AND THE LD. AO, ON THE SAME SET OF MATERIAL & FACTS RESORTE D TO REASSESSMENT ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 6 PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT T HE AO HAS THE POWER TO REASSESS BUT NO POWER TO REVIEW AND REVIEW IN THE G ARB OF REASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE LD. AO COULD NOT BE GRANTED SECOND CHANCE TO HAVE A RELOOK AT THE MATTER WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COMES TO HIS POSSESSION SU BSEQUENTLY SO AS TO JUSTIFY REOPENING. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STOOD VITIATED FOR WANT OF FULFILLMENT OF PRIMARY CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 147 SINCE LD. AO HAD FORMED AN OPINION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND ADOPTED ONE O F THE POSSIBLE VIEW. THEREFORE, REOPENING WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON MER E CHANGE OF OPINION. HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY LD. CI T(A), THOUGH ON DIFFERENT REASONING, THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STOOD VITIATED FOR WANT OF FULFILLMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL CONDITION AS ENVISAGED BY LAW. FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL WHEREAS THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY ASSESSEE, UNDER RULE 27, IN THIS REGARD, STANDS ALLOWED. 5. SO FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, L D. CIT(A), IN OUR OPINION HAS CLINCHED THE ISSUE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE SINCE THERE IS NO BAR UNDER LAW FROM SETTING-OFF OF THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS (STT PAID) SUFFERED FROM TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH RECO GNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE AGAINST THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS REALIZED FROM OFF-MARKET TRANSACTIONS. THE SAME IS IN LINE WITH THE STATUTOR Y PROVISIONS OF SECTION 74(1)(A). THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER, IN THIS REGARD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS DISMIS SED. RESULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 7 ASSESSEES APPEAL- ITA NO. 18/MUM/2017, AY 2012-13 6. AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATION OF ADJUSTMENT OF DISAL LOWANCE U/S 14A, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER APPEAL WITH FOLLOWING SOLE GR OUND OF APPEAL:- THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 23/03/ 2015 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH AGGREGATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS .99.08 LACS U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D WHICH COMPRISED-OFF OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE U/R 8D(2)(II) FOR RS.54.17 LACS AND EXPENSE DISALLOWANC E U/R 8D(2)(III) FOR RS.44.90 LACS. SINCE THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS LOSS F IGURE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX AS PER MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX [MAT] PROVISIONS U/S 115JB. THE ADJUSTMENT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A HAS ALSO BEE N MADE WHILE ARRIVING AT BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO HIGHER TAX OUTGO FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE GRIEVANCE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE SAI D ADJUSTMENT BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN DCIT VS. VIRAJ PROFILES LIMITED [ITA NO.4439 OF 2013] WHEREAS LD. AR, RELYING UPON SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL (SPECIAL BENCH) RENDERED IN ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [82 TAXMANN.COM 415], SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER STOOD SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY THE A FORESAID JUDGMENT. 7. UPON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF FACTUAL MATRIX AS WELL A S JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BEFORE US, WE CONCUR WITH THE STAND OF LD. AR THAT THE MATTER STOOD SQUARELY IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY T HE DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL (SPECIAL BENCH) RENDERED IN ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [SUPRA]. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT SPECIAL BENC H, AFTER CONSIDERING TWO CONTRARY DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT TITLED AS ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 8 CIT VS. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. [2014 361 ITR 505] & PCIT VS. BHUSHAN STEEL LTD. [ITA 593/2015 DATED 29/09/2015], TOOK THE VIEW FAVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF RATIO OF DECISION OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LIMITED [1973 88 ITR 192 ]. THE DECISION IN PCIT VS. BHUSHAN STEEL LTD. , IN TURN, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN APOLLO TYRES LTD. VS. CIT [255 ITR 273] WHICH HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO GO BEHIND THE NET PROFIT SHOWN IN T HE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO SEC TION 115J. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY OUR JURISDICTIONAL BOMBA Y HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS. JSW ENERGY LIMITED [2015 60 TAXMANN.COM 303 ], CIT V. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. [ITA NO. 438 OF 2012, DATED 07/08/2014] & CIT VS. BENGAL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LIMITED [ ITA NO. 337 OF 2013 DATED 10/02/2015]. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CATENA OF JUDGMENT IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, WE HOLD THAT ADJUSTM ENT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN BOOK PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOW ED. CONCLUSION 8. RESULTANTLY, REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO. 567/MUM/20 17 STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 18/ MUM/2017 STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M ANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED :14/11/2018 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE ITA NOS.18 & 567/MUM/2017 BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2010-11 & 2012-13 9 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ) / CIT CONCERNED 5. *+'%, , , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +-. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.