The DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana V. Devikrupa Specific Family Trust, Mehsana

ITA 2074/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5327 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Proportionate interest
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) DCIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA. V/S DEVIKRUPA SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST, PROP. OF BHOOMI PRINT PACK, PLOT NO. 92 & 95, PHASE-II, DEDIYASAN, MEHSANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEVIKRUPA SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST, PROP. OF BHOOMI PRINT PACK, PLOT NO. 92 & 95, PHASE-II, DEDIYASAN, MEHSANA. V/S ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAATD 2843 C APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 09-01-20 14 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 -01-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE TWO APPEALS, ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), GANDHINAGA R DATED 17.03.2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI AL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 2 3. ASSESSEE IS A SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CORRUGATED BOXES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR A.Y. 06-07 ON 31.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 33,93,310/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 11,32,507/- UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U NDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DET ERMINED AT RS. 2,52,92,529/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2010 G RANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A ), THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO TREAT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL AS AGAINST AOP CONSID ERED BY THE A.O. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D MADE U/S. 14A OF THE AC T OF RS. 7,60,709/-. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE JOB CHARGES OF RS. 1,57,32,114/- AND OTHER INCOME OF RS. 8,29,526/-. 5. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ S AS UNDER:- 1. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DISALLOWAN CE OF INTEREST EXPENSES U/S. 14A SHOULD BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D. 2. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCT ION U/S. 80IB SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT RECEIPT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ON SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOM AUTHORITY FOR I SO CERTIFICATION RS. 23,500/- WE FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL. 1 ST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 14A. ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 3 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O . NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTMENT OF RS. 60,89,244/- IN THE SHARES OF NIRMA LTD. AND THE INCOME RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE WERE EXEMPTED UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 10(34) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 21,08,341/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY AS T O WHY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A NOT BE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, A.O. WORKED OUT PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS. 7,60,709/- ON THE BASIS OF 12% OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 60,89,244/- A ND DISALLOWED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN EARLIER YEARS, THE EARLIEST YEAR OF INVESTMENT WAS A.Y. 98- 99 AND THE LAST YEAR OF INVESTMENT WAS A.Y. 05-06. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR INVESTMENT AND FURTHER NO AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.5 THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE LEGAL POSITI ON WITH RESPECT OF SECTION 14A IS, AT THIS POINT, BEST ELUCIDATED BY I.T.A.T. SPECIAL BENCHS DECISION IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (SUPRA), RUL E 8D IS MANDATORY AND IS APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING ASSESSMENTS. THE S PECIAL BENCH OF ITAT HAS ANALYZED THE LEGAL POSITION VERY CLEARLY WHICH COULD BE SUMMARIZED AS- I) EVEN BEFORE INSERTION OF SECTION 14A, THE EXPENS ES INCURRED TOWARDS EXEMPTED INCOME WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. II) SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE TO INCOME EARNED UNDE R ALL HEADS AND BEING A SPECIAL PROVISION, SHALL PREVAIL OVER T HE GENERAL POROVISIONS. III) FURTHER, SECTION 14A(2) AND 14A(3) ARE RETROSP ECTIVE IN NATURE, AS ALSO THE METHOD DESCRIBED IN RULE-8D TO APPORTIO N THE EXPENSES. 4.6 THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING SECTION 14A BUT WAS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLO WANCES AS PER RULE 8D. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT NO NEW INVES TMENT IN SHARES HAVE BEEN ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 4 MADE DURING THE YEAR AND FURTHER ALL THE INVESTMENT S WERE MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT AND FURTHER NO INTERES T WAS DISALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. HE FURTHER POINTED TO THE BALANCE S HEET PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THEREFORE THE PRESUMPTIONS WOULD BE THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. HE A LSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (2013) 37 T AXMAN. COM. 254 (GUJ.) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UTI BANK (2 013) 32 TAXMAN. COM 370 (GUJ.) 8. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT TH E DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE TH E A.O. WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INVE STMENT IN THE SHARES OF NIRMA LTD. WERE MADE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, T HE EARLIEST INVESTMENT WAS A.Y. 98-99 AND THE LAST INVESTMENT IN THE A.Y. 05-06. THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO REPRODUCED BY CITS ON PAGE 2 OF HIS ORDER. BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO AMOUNT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS AND FURTHER NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS. FROM THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 06-07 WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS IN THE BENEFICIARIES ACCOUNT WAS TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 2.50 CRORES AND THE INVESTMENTS ARE OF RS. 60.89 LAKHS AND THUS THE INT EREST FREE FUNDS WERE FAR IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENT. ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 5 10. HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R ELIANCE UTILITIES POWER LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 340 HAS HELD THAT IF INTEREST FREE F UNDS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEETS ITS INVESTMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE LOAN, IT CAN BE PRESUMED TH AT THE INVESTMENTS WERE FROM INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSE E. 11. HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE INTERE ST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT USED IN THE INVESTMENT NO INTEREST COULD B E DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A. 12. BEFORE US, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED BY ASSES SEE TO MAKE INVESTMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HON. HIGH COURTS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE NO DISALLOWANCE IN IS CALLED FOR AND WE THUS D IRECT THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 2 ND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT RECEIPT INCOME. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A .O. NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 11,32,507/- UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. A.O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER SUBMITTED EXACT SUB-SECTION UNDER WHICH THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED NOR IT WAS MENTIONED IN FORM 10 CCB. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O ., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF A. O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.5 THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. WHILE THE ATTIT UDE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE AUDITORS IN NOT MENTIONING EVEN THE SUBSECTION OF THE SECTION UNDER WHICH A CLAIM IS BEING MADE SHOWS CASUAL AND INDIFF ERENCE ATTITUDE, YET ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 6 LEGALLY SPEAKING, IT COULD BE AT THE MOST A DEFECT, MORE SO WHEN THE CLAIM IS BEING MADE AND ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWI NG THE ENTIRE CLAIM. 5.6 AS FAR AS THE QUANTIFICATION IS CONCERNED, SIMI LAR ISSUE HAD COME IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL AND WAS DECIDED VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT(A) GNR/335/07-08 DATED 17.12.2008. THE SAID DECISION H AS FURTHER BEEN ADJUDICATED BY ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER ITA NO. 743/AHD/ 2009 DATED 06.10.2009. AS HELD IN THAT ORDER, FOR THIS YEAR AL SO IT IS HELD THAT- I) JOB CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,57,32,114/- BE IN CLUDED IN THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS. II) FREIGHT RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT THESE ARE REIMBU RSEMENT OF THE FREIGHT EXPENSES NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ELIGIB LE PROFITS. ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DO THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION AT APPEAL EFFECT STAGE. III) SIMILARLY IF APPELLANT IN ITS COMPUTATION HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED DIVIDEND, THE SAME CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AGAIN. THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND TAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION ACC ORDINGLY. IV) AS FOR KASAR IS CONCERNED, THIS SHALL FORM PART OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB SINCE A.Y. 1999-2000 AND THE S AME HAS BEEN ALLOWED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 05-06, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED BY HON. TR IBUNAL. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER IN ITA NO. 7 43/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 06.10.2009 AT PAGE 107 TO 122 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR A.Y . 05-06, SIMILAR DIRECTION BE GIVEN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS EITHER B EFORE A.O. OR CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE A.O. WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING TH E DISALLOWANCE. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON ISSUE OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB FOR A.Y. 05-06, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 06.10.2009 DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UN DER:- ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 7 11 GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO CLAIM FOR NETTING OF LO W OF FREIGHT RECEIPTS AGAINST FREIGHT EXPENSES WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 11,58,396/-. THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED JOB CHARGES OF RS. 1,25,52,643/- AND OTHER INCOME AT RS. 8,47,342/- (DIVIDEND RS. 67528 + KESAR OF RS. 45/- AND FREIGHT INCOME OF RS. 762899/-) WHILE CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION. ACCORDIN G TO THE A.O., THE NATURE OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIPT OF RS. 762859/- REVEALED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INCURRING ANY ADVENTURES AND THUS, THE AMOUNT WAS N OT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 12ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER: 6.8 AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF FREIGHT RECEIPT IS CON CERNED, IF THE CONTENTION OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS CORR ECT, OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE NOT APPELLANTS INCOME AND THEREFORE TO T HE EXTENT THESE ARE CONTRA ENTRIES, EXCLUSION OF THE CREDIT SIDE W OULD GO TO REDUCE THE APPELLANTS PROFIT FROM ITS BUSINESS. NEVERTHEL ESS, AS STATED EARLIER, FULL DETAILS HAVE NOT COME FROM THE AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE IT IS A MATTER OF SCRUTIN Y AS TO WHETHER ALL THESE RECEIPTS ARE THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FREIGHT EXP ENSES AND IF SO OF THE PRESENT YEAR OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO DO THIS SCRUTINY AT THE TIME OF GIVING APPEAL EFFECT. IF TO THE EXTENT THESE ARE THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE FREIGHT EXPENSES DEBI TED TO THE ASSESSEES PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR, TH EN THESE ARE NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB, IF NOT AND SO MUCH OF THOSE WHICH ARE NOT, THESE SHALL BE INCLUDE D FOR THE COMPUTATION PURPOSES. 13 THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFO RESAID DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. A.R. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE SEEKS NETTING OF THE FREIGHT EXPENSES AGAINST FREIG HT RECEIPTS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RESTORED THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE FULL DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO SCRUTINIZE THE DETAILS AND TO THE EXTENT FREIGHT RECEIPTS ARE REIM BURSEMENT FOR THE FREIGHT EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE ASSESSEES PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR, THEN THESE ARE NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTATION O F DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. DID NOT REFER US TO ANY MAT ERIAL OR DETAILS. IF THE FREIGHT RECEIPTS ARE MERELY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENS ES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE LD CIT (A). THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 6 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 8 16. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE NEITHER SUBMITTED THE DETAILS BEFORE A.O. OR CIT(A). BEFORE US THE LD. A. R. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NON SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT BEFORE A.O. THE REQUIRED DETAI LS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. WE ALSO DIRECT THE A SSESSEE TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. PROMPTLY W ITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. IN CASE OF FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETAILS, TH E A.O. SHALL BE FREE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. THUS THIS GROUN D OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. GROUND NO. 3 WAS NOT PRESSED IN VIEW OF SMALLNE SS OF AMOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL( ITA NO. 2074/AHD/2 010.) GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. 19. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS INTERCONNECTED WITH G ROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE, WHIL E DECIDING THE GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVEN UE. THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION UNDER 80I B. 20. SINCE THIS GROUND IS CONNECTED WITH GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND WHILE DECIDING THE AFORESAID GROUND OF ASSESSEE HER EINABOVE, WE HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO DECIDE I T AFRESH AND THEREFORE THIS ITA NOS 2074 & 2143/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 9 GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALSO REMITTED BEFORE A.O. FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH. THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 21. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND REVEN UE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07- 02 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD