The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Jindal Worldwide Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1843/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3368 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH ARS; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Tax effect; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ./ I.T.A. NO. 1843/AHD/2016 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 145/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD 1 ST FLOOR, NAVJIVAN TRUST BUILDING, AHMEDABAD 380014 / VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LIMITED 1 ST FLOOR, SURYRATH, PANCHVATI FIRST LANE, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD 380006 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACJ3816G ( APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ) .. ( RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR & SHRI PARIN SHAH, A.RS. DATE OF HEARING 11/12/2018 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/02/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 0 2.05.2016 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN T HE REVENUES APPEAL AS CAPTIONED ABOVE. ITA NO. 1843/AHD/2016 (REVENUES APPEAL) 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE REA DS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A TO RS.2,01,860/- AS AGAINST RS.40,43,049/- ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB HAS ALSO BEEN RESTRICTED TO T HAT EXTENT WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HI T BY RECENTLY ISSUED CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2018 DATED 11/07/2018 REVISIN G THE PREVIOUS THRESHOLDS PERTAINING TO TAX EFFECTS. AS PER AFORE SAID CIRCULAR, ALL PENDING APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED AS A MEASURE FOR REDUCING LITIGATION WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT WHICH IS NOW REVISED AT RS.20 LAKHS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TAX EFFECT ON THE DISPUTED IS SUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS STATED TO BE NOT EXCEEDING RS.20 LAKHS A ND THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMIN E. 5. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED T HE APPLICABILITY OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2018. A CCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. H OWEVER, IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO SEEK RESTORATION OF ITS APPE AL ON SHOWING INAPPLICABILITY OF THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR IN A NY MANNER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 7. NOW, WE TURN TO CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN REVENUES APPEAL IN CO NO.145/AHD/2016. ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - 8. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNS DIS ALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT TO T HE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME I.E. RS.5,67,276/-. THE LEARNED AR F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A O F THE ACT WAS WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS.44,08,465/- COMPRISING O F RS.40,43,049/- TOWARDS PROPORTIONATE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE UNDER R ULE 8D(2)(II) AND REMAINING RS.3,65,416/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES. THE CIT(A) IN FIRST APPEAL HAS RESTRICTED T HE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.5,66,27 6/- AS AGAINST SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,65,416/- BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR IN THIS CONTEXT POINTED OUT THAT REFERENCE TO THE F INANCIAL STATEMENT THAT THE OWN FUNDS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NEARLY 100 TIMES OF THE CORRESPONDING INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN INDIA GELATINE & CHE MICALS 376 ITR 553 (GUJ), NO DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS PROPORTIONATE IN TEREST IS JUSTIFIED. WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PLEA ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE LONG LINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE. WE THUS DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S. 14A TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,65,416/- AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE ITAT RU LES, 1962. THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY STANDS ALLOWED. 9. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO MAINTAINABILITY OF DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT UND ER NORMAL PROVISIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFIT AS DETERMINED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE F IND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ALEMBIC LTD. TAX APPE AL NO. 1249 OF 2014 (GUJ) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH IN VIREET INVESTMENTS 165 ITD 27 (SB). IN VIEW OF THE EXPRES S JUDICIAL FIAT AVAILABLE IN THIS REGARD, THE DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED UNDER S.14A CANNOT BE IMPORTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADJUSTMENT I N BOOK PROFIT UNDER ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - S.115JB OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THIS REGARD THUS STANDS ALLOWED. 10. THIRD ISSUE CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.38,850/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF AI R CONDITIONER MACHINES AND FINGER RECOGNITION SYSTEM. THE LEARNE D AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AIR CONDITIONERS WERE I NSTALLED WITH THE FACTORY PREMISES AND THE FINGER RECOGNITION SYSTEM IS FOR THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE EMPLYEES ATTENDANCE . BOTH THE ASSETS ARE IN THE NATURE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THUS Q UALIFY FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER S.32(1)(IIA) OF THE A CT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERR ED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NATHUBHAI H P ATEL (2006) 154 TAXMAN 117 (GUJ). WE FIND FORCE IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ADDITIONAL DE PRECIATION IN THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE. THE AFORESAID ISSUE IS THUS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION WHICH READS AS UNDE R: ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE INTEREST SUBSIDY OF RS.2,16,45,161 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER TECHN OLOGY UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME (TUFS) FOR TEXTILE AND JUTE INDUSTRIES DURING THE A BOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT . 11.1 THE ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN ADMITTED TO ADJ UDICATE THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AVAILABLE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN DCIT VS. M/S. ADANI GAS LTD. ITA NOS. 775/AHD/20 14 & ORS. ORDER DATED 17.10.2018. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF T HE ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 21.4 A LEGAL ISSUE ALSO CROPPED UP IN THE COURSE O F HEARING AS TO WHETHER ADDITIONAL GROUND COULD BE RAISED IN A CROSS OBJECTION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.253(4) OF THE ACT. ON BEING ENQUIRED ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTE R, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE DISTINCTION B ETWEEN THE POSITION OF LAW QUA CROSS OBJECTION IN THE MATTER OF FILING ADDITIONAL GROUND . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A CROSS OBJECTION HAS ALL THE TRAPPINGS OF A REGULAR APPEAL MORE SO IN THE LIGHT OF LANGUAGE EMPLOYED UNDER S.253(4) OF THE ACT. 21.5 WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPOS ITIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN A CROSS OBJECTION, THERE IS NO BAR TO RAISE LEGAL ISSUES FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE ITAT. A CROSS OBJECTION IS LIKE AN APPEAL. IT HAS ALL THE TRAPPINGS OF AN APPEAL. IT IS FILED IN THE FORM OF MEMORANDUM AND IT IS REQ UIRED TO BE DISPOSED IN SAME MANNER AS AN APPEAL. EVEN WHERE THE APPEAL IS WITHDRAWN O R DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT, CROSS OBJECTION MAY NEVERTHELESS BE HEARD AND DETERMINED. CROSS OBJECTION IS NOTHING BUT AN APPEAL, A CROSS APPEAL AT THAT. THIS APART, RAI SING OF ADDITIONAL GROUND WOULD ONLY ENABLE THE AUTHORITY CONCERN TO CORRECTLY ASSESS TH E TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. JASJIT SINGH (DEL) IN CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 138 TO 142/DEL/ 2014 INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.09.2014. WE THUS DO NOT SEE ANY IMPEDIMENT IN E NTERTAINING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD . 21.6 IN SO FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM MADE IN A DDITIONAL GROUND IS CONCERNED, WE OBSERVE THAT WHERE THE AO HAS READJUSTED THE QUANTU M OF DEPRECIATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN ITS LEGITIMATE RIGHTS TO BE GRANTED DEPRECIATION IN AY 2009-10 AS PER THE FIGURES WORKE D BY THE AO HIMSELF. WE DO NOT SEE ANY PERCEPTIBLE REASON FOR NOT ADMITTING SUCH C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND BONAFIDES IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RAISING N EW CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND AT THIS BELATED STAGE. THE ORDER FOR THE AY 2012-13 WAS PASSED ON 29.03.2015. BY VIRTUE OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE REVISION IN THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION CONCERNING AY 2012-13. BY THAT TIME, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 13.12.2013 WAS ALREADY PASSED. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS INCAPACITATED TO PUT FORWARD SUCH NEW CLAIM TOWARDS DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL AMOUNTING TO RS.5,57,63,315/- FOR WHICH RELEVANT FA CTS ARE DULY AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) & NTPC VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC). 22. IN THE RESULT, ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11.2 HAVING ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ADJU DICATION AS NOTED ABOVE WE NOW TURN TO THE RELEVANT FACTS TOUCHING TH E ISSUE. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, A TECHNOLOGY UPGRADA TION FUND SCHEME (TUFS) WAS INTRODUCED IN 1999 TO CATALYZE INVESTMEN TS IN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES. THE PURPOSE OF SCHEME UNDER WHICH THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN WAS STATED TO BE TO SUSTAIN AND PROVE THE COMPETITI VENESS AND FOR LONG TERM VIABILITY OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY. THE CONCERNED MINISTRY OF TEXTILE ADOPTED TUFS SCHEME ENVISAGING TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATI ON OF THE INDUSTRY AS PER THE SCHEME. THE OBJECT OF THE SCHEM E WAS TO ENHANCE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH IN VALUE CHAIN FOR OVERALL GROWT H OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY. PURSUANT TO TUFS, CERTAIN SUBSIDY BENEFI TS BY WAY OF ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - INTEREST ON REIMBURSEMENT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM AUTHO RIZED AGENCIES FOR INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR SPINNING UNIT S AND OTHER MACHINERIES IN TEXTILE INDUSTRY WAS AVAILED BY TEXT ILE SECTOR. 11.3 IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN AS OBTAINED SUBSIDY BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF INTEREST UNDER THE SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRE ATED THE AFORESAID INTEREST REIMBURSEMENT SUBSIDY MISTAKENLY AS REVENU E RECEIPT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND DISCLOSED THE SAME BY WAY OF NET OF F FROM INTEREST EXPENSES. THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS THUS STATED TO BE OVERSTATED TO THIS EXTENT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CHARACTER OF SUC H SUBSIDY IN THE HANDS OF RECIPIENT ASSESSEE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE HA VING REGARD TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN I.E. ACCELE RATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY. 11.4 REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE NOTES FORMING PART O F THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT DETAILING THE INTEREST SUBSIDY AGGREGATING TO RS.2,16,45,161/- AS REDUCED FROM THE INTEREST COSTS. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO ADVERTED TO NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT WHEREIN SUITABLE D ISCLOSURE WAS MADE TOWARDS CLAIM OF INTEREST SUBSIDY. 11.5 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE THAT WHERE SUCH SUBSIDY IS INTENDED AND BESTOWED NOT WITH THE OBJECT OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS BUT WITH A SOLEMN OBJECT OF ATTRACTING INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT OR EXPANSION, SUCH INTEREST SUBSIDY IS I N THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE REDUCED FRO M THE INTEREST COSTS. IT IS THUS CONTENDED THAT SUCH CAPITAL RECEIPT IS N OT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE RELEVANT AY 2012-13 IN QUESTION BEING A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 12. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSEESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN CIT VS. CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 178 (SC); CIT VS. ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. [2016] 67 TAXMANN.COM 158 (SC ) AND CIT VS. SHAM LAL BANSAL [2011] 11 TAXMANN.COM 369 (P&H). I N THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID JUDGMENTS, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT AND PURPOSES OF THE SCH EME, THE INTEREST SUBSIDY IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIP T OF NON-TAXABLE NATURE HAVING REGARD TO THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS NOTED ABOVE. 13. THE AFORESAID VIEW IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE LEG ISLATURE IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT AS PER SUB CLAUSE (XVIII) TO SECTION 2(24 ) OF THE IT ACT AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 WHICH READS AS UN DER: [(XVIII) ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF A SUBSIDY OR GR ANT OR CASH INCENTIVE OR DUTY DRAWBACK OR WAIVER OR CONCESSION OR REIMBURSEMENT (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) BY THE CENT RAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY AUTHORITY O R BODY OR AGENCY IN CASH OR KIND TO THE ASSESSEE [OTH ER THAN, (A) THE SUBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT WHICH IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 10 TO CLAUSE (1) OF SECTION 43; OR (B) .. A CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, AS A COROLLARY T O SAID AMENDMENT, SUCH A CAPITAL RECEIPT MAY BECOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH IS OTHERWISE A CAPITAL RECEIPT W.E.F. 01.04.2016. THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT HAS THUS COME INTO FORCE W.E.F. AY 2016-1 7 WHICH REINFORCES THE IMPRESSION OF SUCH CAPITAL RECEIPT B EING OUT OF TAX NET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. 14. THUS, ON FIRST PRINCIPLES, WE FIND OURSELVES IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON CHARGEABILITY OF SUCH CAPITAL RECEIPTS REGARDLESS OF ITS TREATMENT I N BOOKS AS REVENUE RECEIPTS. WE ARE HOWEVER CONSCIOUS IN SAME VAIN TH AT THE ISSUE HAS ITA NO. 1843/AHD/16 WITH CO NO. 145/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 8 - BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OCCASION TO LOOK INTO THE RELEVA NT FACTS. WE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO RESTORE THE IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF RELEVANT FACTUAL ASPECTS TOW ARDS QUANTUM OF RECEIPT OF INTEREST SUBSIDY AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTAT ION IN THIS REGARD, IF SO CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN THE OPINION OF THE AO . THE AO SHALL ACCORDINGLY GRANT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS AND SHALL EXCLUDE THE SUB SIDY FROM THE AMBIT OF TAXATION ON BEING SATISFIED ABOUT THE FACTUAL CO RRECTNESS ON QUANTUM OF SUCH SUBSIDY. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 20/02/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- $. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE &. '() * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) -. ./0 122()3 ()!3 45' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 078 9 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 3 /4 ()!3 45' THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20/02/2019