The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 198/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 19820514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: U S BHATTI
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD, APOLLO HOUSE, NR. MITHAKALI CIRCLE, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDBAD- 380009 PAN: AACG 7248 P (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI U.S. BHATTI, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-20 14 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-VIII AHMEDABAD DATED 18-10-2012. ITA NO. 198/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 2 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 40,32,955/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNRE ALIZED SALES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR 90% OF THE SALES ON MERCANTILE BASIS AND REMAINING 10% ON CASH BASIS, WHICH WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,36,668/- U/S. 14A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND RS. 1,00,000/- FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WITHOUT CONTROVORTING THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AO AND NOT CO NSIDERING THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (347 ITR 272). 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION O F UNREALIZED SALES AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,32,955/-. THE OBSERVATION OF T HE AO WHILE MAKING THIS ADDITION WAS SUMMARIZED BY LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER: 'THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SAID SUM OF UNREALIZED SALE WAS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE GOODS SOLD B Y THE COMPANY. PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RETAINED BY THE VARI OUS PARTIES FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF WARRANTY CONDITIONS TO BE MET IN CAS E OF ANY CONTINGENCIES ARISING THEREIN. THE PROVISIONS OF WA RRANTY TO BE MET ARE TOTALLY A CONTINGENT LIABILITY AS ANY DEFAULT O N THIS ACCOUNT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR. HENCE THE MONEY RETAINED BY THE VARI OUS PARTIES AS SECURITY FOR THE WARRANTY WAS MORE IN THE NATURE OF MEETING CONTINGENT LIABILITY AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT AN ALLO WABLE EXPENDITURE IN THE CURRENT YEAR. FURTHER, SINCE THIS IS A PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION SO DEFINITELY SUCH SUMS, REFERRED ABO VE HAD ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. RELIAN CE IN THIS RESPECT IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGADH I N THE CASE OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION LTD VS DCIT REPORTED IN 87 TTJ 440 WHEREBY THE HON'BLE ITAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD T HAT WHERE THE I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 3 INCOME HAS ACTUALLY ACCRUED CANNOT BE REDUCED WITH REFERENCE PROBABLE OBLIGATION OF CONTINGENT NATURE WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER WARRANTY CLAUSE AND THE APPELLANT WILL BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT TO MEET THE OBLIGATION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WILL ACTUALLY ARISE. SIMILAR LAW HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF DCJT VS AMARSHIV CONSTRUCT ION PVT LTD REPORTED IN 88 ITO381. 4. IN THE FIRST INNING THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 30-08-2011 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH FOLLOWING DIRECTION:- 5.2. IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ANALYSE THE RELEVANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF VARIOUS CONTRACTS IN RELATION TO RETENTION MONEY NOR RECORDED HIS SPECIFIC FINDINGS AS TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. AS IS APPARENT THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUFFERS FROM LACK OF REASONING AND I S NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. THE LD. CIT (A) WITHOUT GOING INTO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS, MERELY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OFF THE A 0. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT ANALYSED THE RELEVANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACTS IN R ELATION TO RETENTION MONEY WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR DE CIDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THOSE REF ERRED TO ABOVE, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE P ARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE RE-DECIDING THE APPEAL THE LEARNED C IT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MA NDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 250(6) OF THE ACT AND BRINGING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY AMOUNT RETAINED BY THE RESPECTIVE CUSTOMERS ACT UALLY ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WIT H THESE OBSERVATIONS GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF. IN COMPLIANCE OF ABOVE DIRECTIONS, LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODU CED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER DELETED THIS ADDITION. I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 4 5. BEFORE US LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE AO W HILE MAKING THIS ADDITION. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE O THER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT HONBLE ITAT IN THE FIRST INNING HAS OBSERVED THAT LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANALYZING THE RELEVANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF VARI OUS CONTRACTS IN RELATION TO THE RETENTION MONEY AND WITHOUT RECORDING HIS SP ECIFIC FINDING AS TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,32,955/-. HONBL E ITAT THEREFORE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER ANALYZING THE RELEVANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACTS IN RELATION TO THE RETENTION MONEY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY AMOUNT RETAINED BY THE RESPECTIVE CUSTOMERS ACTUALLY ACCRU ED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WHETHER THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY HIM. IN COMPLIANCE OF THIS, LD. CIT(A) AFTER ANALYZING THE TERMS OF PAYMENTS OF PURCHASE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PARTIES HAS G IVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE RETENTION OF 10% MONEY OF TOTAL SALES WAS DUE TO SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FINAL PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE CUSTO MER PURCHASE ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEAR S AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. NOT ONLY THIS HE ALSO EXAMINED AS TO W HETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY DEVIATION FROM THE USUAL PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY IT IN THE EARLIER YEARS WITH AN INTENTION TO EVADE TAX AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH CHANGE I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 5 DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND WHATEVER RETENTION MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THIS YEAR AND REALIZED IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EAR HAS BEEN SHOWN AS SALE PROCEEDS IN THAT YEAR AND OFFERED FOR TAX. HE THEREFORE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO DISTURB THE METHOD OF ACC OUNTING FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND ALSO FOUND NO DISCREPANCY IN T ERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE ORDERS. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ANALYZED THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE AO AND ALSO THAT OF ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT RELIANC E PLACED BY AO ON CERTAIN CASE LAWS WAS MISPLACED AS THEY DO NOT APPL Y TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE FOLLOWED HO NBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN, NAMELY APOLL O INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P. LTD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 IN WHICH IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED 7. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 27,36,66 8/- U/S. 14A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND RS. 1,00,000/- FOR ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENSES. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO WHILE MAKING THIS DISALLOWAN CE HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED BY LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER:- 4.1 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF EXA CT SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNTS OF INTEREST BEARIN G FUND AND NON INTEREST BEARING FUND UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT. FURT HER THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DAY TODAY FUND FLOW STATEMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS OF SOURC E OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES / MUTUAL FUND IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS INVESTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR MAKING INVE STMENT IN I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 6 SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN LIGHT OF HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF H ARISH KRISHNAKANT BHATT VS ITO (2004) 91 ITO 311 (AHD). F URTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. MUMB AI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS, DAHSHESH S SHAH REPORTED IN 90 ITO 519, WH ERE BY THE HON'BLE MUMBAI ITAT HELD THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME B EING EXEMPT FROM TAX THE DEDUCTION U/S. 57(III) TOWARDS INTERES T AMOUNT BORROWED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES COULD NOT BE ALLOWED SINCE SUCH A DEDUCTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE AC T. FURTHER THE HON'BLE KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS SG INVESTMENT AND INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 89 ITO 44, HELD THAT TH E EXPRESSION 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME' IN SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE GIVEN WIDER MEANING AND WOULD INCLUDE BOTH DIRECT A ND INDIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPENDITURE AND EXEMPT INCOME. ' 8. IN THE FIRST INNING THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 30-08-2011 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH FOLLOWING DIRECTION:- 4.2 THE ID. A.R WHILE REFERRING TO DECISION DATED 28.3.2011 OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO. 1587OF 2009 AND CJT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. 323 ITR 518 (P & H) CONTENDED THAT THE ITAT HAD NO OCCA SION TO CONSIDER THESE DECISIONS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THEREFORE , MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUD ICATING THE ISSUE IN THE FIGHT OF THESE DECISIONS. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THOUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE A.O NOR BEFORE THE LD. CJT(A), THE APPELLANT FURNISHED DETAILS AND EVIDENCE THAT FUNDS BORROWED BY IT WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR BUSINESS ALO NE AND NOT BY WAY OF INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS. RESULTAN TLY, THE A.O MADE AN ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON BORROWED F UNDS AND OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR TH E PRECEDING YEAR. THE ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HAS NOW BEEN RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O BY THE ITAT IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION DAT ED 8./10/2010. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY FEW MORE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON THE I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 7 ISSUE, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR NEED TO BE CON SIDERED. WE NOTICE THAT THE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 16.1.2009 IN T HE A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NOS. 1343/AHD/2006 AND 1503/AHD/2006 IN THE APP ELLANT'S OWN CASE RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A O FOR WOR KING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED I N SUB-SECTIONS 2 & 3 OF SECTION 14A INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2006 READ WI TH RULE 8 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE ITAT MERELY FOLLOWED TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (P) LTD. 119 TTJ 89. 9.5 AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF UTILIZATION OF THEIR BORROWED F UNDS BEFORE THE AO/LD.CLT(A) AND RESULTANTLY, THE LD. CFT(A) COULD NOT ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BORROWED FUNDS HAVE INDEED BEEN UTIL IZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND WERE NOT U TILIZED IN ACQUIRING THE AFORESAID SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS NOR THE LD.CIT(A) HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE CO NSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF DISALL OWANCE GROUNDS NOS. 2 & 3 IN THIS APPEAL AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. INCLUDING THOSE RE FERRED TO ABOVE, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE P ARTIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WHILE RE-DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED C IT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, KEEPING IN MIND, INTER ALIA, THE MA NDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC, 250(6) OF THE ACT, BRINGING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BORROWED FUNDS HAD INDEED BEEN UTILIZED IN INVESTME NT IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 IN THE APPEAL ARE DI SPOSED OFF. IN COMPLIANCE OF ABOVE DIRECTIONS, LD CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODU CED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 8 9. BEFORE US LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE AO W HILE MAKING THIS ADDITION. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE O THER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30-08-2011 IN THE FIRST INNING HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO BRING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER THE BORROWED FUND H AS INDEED BEEN UTILIZED IN INVESTMENT IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS FOR EARNING EXEMP T INCOME. LD. CIT(A) TO CARRY OUT THIS DIRECTION ANALYZED THE FINANCIAL CHART SHOWING THE FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS AND FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT SURPLUS FUNDS AT HIS DISPOSAL FOR MAKING ANY INVESTMENT IN SHARE AND FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEXUS THAT COULD BE ESTABLISHED WITH THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME. THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN BORROWING RATHER THERE WAS REDUCTION IN TOTAL DEBTS. THE LAW IS NOW SETTLED T HAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A CAN BE MADE OF INTEREST EXPENSES UNTIL THERE IS FINDING OF AO THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED BY ASSESSEE TO EARN EX EMPT INCOME. THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENT U/S. 14 A OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- OUT OF ADMIN ISTRATIVE EXPENSES MADE BY AO U/S. 14A OF THE ACT, LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTE D THIS DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 50,000/- WHICH ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERF ERENCE ON OUR PART AS IT APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. I.T.A NO. 198/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE N O DCIT VS. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD 9 11. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R.MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 31/01/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,