ACIT, Circle - 54, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata

ITA 2137/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100049 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY M UKHERJEE JCITLD
• Assessee Lawyers: R N BAJORIA ADVOATE LD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 263; 63

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 2137/KOL/2010 & 612/KOL/2011 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2007-08 ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA VS. SRI PAWAN KUMAR JHUN JHUNWALA PAN: ACPPJ2615K ( APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT ) ( RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE ) I.T.A NOS. 2000& 2001/K/2010, 758 &536/KOL/2011 A.YS. 2005-06, 06-07, 07-08 SRI PAWAN KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA VS. ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: SHRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE, JCIT, LD.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE : SHRI R.N BAJORIA, ADVOATE LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 05-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06-11-2 015 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM THE AFORESAID APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVE NUE ARISE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING APPELLATE ORDERS FOR THE ASST YEARS 2005-06 ; 2006- 07 & 2007-08 AND ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263 F OR THE ASST YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE. THE VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED IN SEVERAL ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE R EVENUE ARE ADJUDICATED INDEPENDENTLY ISSUE WISE HEREIN BELOW. ISSUE I TAXABILITY OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CLIEN TS IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE COMPLETED IN THE SUBSEQ UENT YEAR 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF J HUNJHUNWALA & CO FOLLOWING REGULARLY CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THE TOTAL INC OME COMPRISES MAINLY OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME, SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND INTEREST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VIZ CASH BOOK, LEDGER, BILLS / VOUCHERS, ETC WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND THE SAME WERE EXAMINED ON TEST CHECK BASIS BY THE LEARNED AO . THESE FACTS ON RECORD ARE UNDISPUTED AND INDISPUTABLE. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CERTAIN SUMS AS ADVANCE FROM CL IENTS IN THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE LEARNED AO AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIP T IN LINE WITH THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS ON ACCOUNT OF CO URT FEES, COUNSEL FEES , STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES, TYPING CHARGES, PHOTOCOPYING CHARGES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES ETC. ADVANCE PAYMENTS RECEIVED ARE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BILL AMOUNT AND THE BILLS ARE GENERALLY RAISED AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE MATTERS. THE LEARNED AO NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THIS REPLY SOUGHT TO BRING TO TAX THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT IN LINE WITH CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE AS SESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS STATED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND THE LEARNED AO HAV ING STATED THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS CANNOT TAKE THE CHARACTER OF A TRADING RECEIPT UNLESS THE SERVICES ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 3 ARE RENDERED AND BILLS ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, SOUGHT TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF ADVANCES AS INCOME IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS SUBSTANTIATING THAT NO INCOME ACT UALLY ARISING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS POSTPONED TO THE NEXT YEAR. AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US FOR VARIOUS ASST YEARS BY RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS. 3.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND TREATING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS AS A LI ABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE SAME ARE TAKEN TO INCOME AS AND WHEN THE RELEVANT M ATTERS ARE CONCLUDED. THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FR OM ASST YEAR 1985-86 ONWARDS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S FOR THE ASST YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05, THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE REVENUE AND NO ADDITION TOWARDS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS WAS MADE FOR THOSE TWO ASST YEARS. HOWEVER, A PARADIGM SHIFT WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE FOR ASST YEA RS 2005-06 & 2007-08 BY BRINGING THE SAME TO TAX. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, T HE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED AO. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVID UAL ENGAGED IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION HAD TO RECEIVE CERTAIN ADVANCES FROM CLIENTS FOR TA KING CARE OF CERTAIN EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT AND THE SA ME IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS A LIABILITY. THE SAID LIABILITY TAKES THE CHARACTE R OF INCOME ON COMPLETION OF THE MATTERS / ASSIGNMENT TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE. W E HOLD THAT THE SOLICITOR IS THE AGENT OF THE CLIENT. THE CLIENT MAKES OVER THE MONEY TO THE SOLICITOR FOR SOME WORK BEING DONE BY THE SOLICITOR AS HIS AGENT. THE MONEY MUS T BE EMPLOYED TO THAT PURPOSE AND MUST NOT BE TREATED AS MONEY RECEIVED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THIS POSITION IS NOT ALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE SOLICITOR RETAINS A LI EN UPON THE BALANCE OF THE MONEY FOR HIS COSTS. THE RESULT OF SOLICITOR HAVING A LIEN ON T HE BALANCE OF THE MONEY IS NO MORE ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 4 THAN A PERSON HAVING A CHARGE ON SOMEBODY ELSES MO NEY. WHEN A SOLICITOR RECEIVES MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT, HE DOES NOT DO SO AS A TRADI NG RECEIPT BUT HE RECEIVES THE MONEY OF THE PRINCIPAL IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN AGENT AND TH AT ALSO IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. THE SOLICITOR REMAINS LIABLE TO ACCOUNT BY THIS MONEY T O HIS CLIENT AND HENCE IT DOES NOT BECOME THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT LY FOLLOWING THIS ACCOUNTING PRACTICE FOR OVER TWO DECADES AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED AO IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E ASST YEA RS 2003-04 & 2004-05 ON THIS ISSUE. THOUGH PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT AP PLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY CANNOT BE GIVEN A GO BY IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE . RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT REPORTED IN 193 ITR 321 (SC) 3.5. NOW COMING TO THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECI SION PLACED BY THE LEARNED AO ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS (I) LTD VS ACIT REPORTED IN (2008) 111 ITD 116 (CHENNAI) . IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TIME SHARE UNITS TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR PROVIDING USERSHIP RIGHTS ALONG WITH OTHER FACILITIES AND AMENITIES FOR THE PERIOD OF 99 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD 100% OF THE CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF TIME S HARE AGREEMENTS FROM ITS CUSTOMERS. IT, HOWEVER, TREATED ONLY 45% OF THE RE CEIPTS SO RECEIVED AS ASSESSABLE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR AND SOUGHT TO DEFER THE BALANCE 5 5% OF SUCH RECEIPTS. THE 55% RECEIPTS WAS SOUGHT TO BE SPREAD OVER THE DURATION OF THE SAID TIME SHARE AGREEMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID INCOM E, THE ASSESSEE HAD OBLIGATIONS TO DISCHARGE IN FUTURE AND TO INCUR EXPENDITURE THEREF OR. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS SHOWN 55% OF SUCH RECEIPTS AS ITS LIABILITY. BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY PARTICULARS OR DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IT WAS OBLIGED TO INCUR FOR ANY OBLIGATION FOR WHICH THE SAID SUM COULD BE SET APAR T. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER FOUND THAT ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 5 THE SAID AMOUNT DID NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF DEPO SIT FOR ANY EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN FUTURE. IT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY AD OPTED A SUBTERFUGE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX ON 55% OF THE RECEIPTS. THE BASIS FACTS IN THE SAID CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER DISPUTED THE INCOME CHARACTER OF THE ENTIRE R ECEIPT. WHAT IT SOUGHT WAS THAT 55% OF SUCH INCOME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM TAX ON THE G ROUND THAT IT HAD TO INCUR EXPENDITURE IN SEVERAL FUTURE YEARS FOR OBLIGATIONS ARISING THEREFROM. IT WAS CLAIMING A SET OFF OF AN ESTIMATED FUTURE EXPENDITURE FOR WHIC H IT HAD INCURRED LIABILITY FOR EARNING 55% OF SUCH INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABL E TO SHOW ANY OBLIGATION FOR ANY EXPENDITURE TO BE INCURRED, THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED I TS CLAIM FOR SUCH ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AND HELD THAT IT COULD NOT DEFER THE IN COME WHICH IT HAD ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED TO SUIT ITS CONVENIENCE. THE TRIBUNAL ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS FOUND THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 55% WAS NOT AN ADVANCE AND AL SO NOT REFUNDABLE. THUS, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING 55% FROM THE INCOME. IT HELD THAT IT WAS ONLY A DEVICE TO SWEEP THE REVENUE. 3.5.1 BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS ADVANCES FROM TIME TO TIME TO MEET THE EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THEI R CLIENTS AND THE AMOUNT ALREADY SPENT IS DEBITED IN THEIR ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE AMOU NTS HAVE BEEN CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR AND THIS ACCOUNTING PRACTICE IS A CON TINUOUS PROCESS OVER THE YEARS. FOR THE TIME BEING, THE ASSESSEE WAS A CUSTODIAN OF THA T AMOUNT. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AO IS SQUARELY DISTINGUISHABLE AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 3.6. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS RATAN LAL GAGAR IN ITAT NO. 80 OF 2014 G.A.NO. 1933 OF 2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 12 .9.2014 WHICH DEALT WITH THE VERY SAME ISSUE, WHEREIN THE QUESTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE COURT AND THE DECISION RENDERED THEREON ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 6 QUESTIONS : I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,62,006/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS CLIENTS AND FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ? II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ENT IRE AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,62,006/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS CLIENTS, BY DISREGARDING THAT THE LAW FIRMS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM PUTTING AS IDE ALL THE ADVANCES IN BALANCE SHEET, THEREBY THEY ARE DEFERRING THE TAX L IABILITIES AND ENJOYING THE SAID ADVANCES WITHOUT PAYING TAX? PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE ORDER: - IT IS SUBMITTED BY MR. J.P KHAITAN THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT IN CIT, WEST BENGAL-I VS. SANDERSONS & MORGANS: 75 ITR 433 (CAL). IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMIS SION, HE HAS REFERRED TO A PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, WHICH SPECIFICAL LY DEALS WITH ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: ON THE OTHER HAND, HE SUBMITTED, WHEN MONEY WAS MADE OVER TO THE SOLICITOR, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SOLICITOR RECE IVED THE MONEY AS TRADING RECEIPT. THAT CHARACTER HE SUBMITTED, WAS IMPRESSED UPON THE MONEY THROUGHOUT AND THE BALANCE OF THAT MONEY, EVEN TH OUGH REFUNDABLE TO THE CLIENT, WHEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT WOULD BE PROFIT OUT OF TRADING RECEIPT AND CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSABLE TO INCOME TAX. IN OUR OPINION, THIS ARGUMENT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ARGUMENT PROCEEDS ON AN ENTIRE MISCONCEPTION OF THE CHARACTER OF CLIENT S MONEY RECEIVED BY A SOLICITOR. THE SOLICITOR IS THE AGENT OF THE CLIE NT. THE CLIENT MAKES OVER THE MONEY TO THE SOLICITOR FOR SOME WORK BEING DONE BY THE SOLICITOR AS HIS AGENT. THE MONEY MUST BE EMPLOYED TO THAT PURPOSE AND MUST NOT BE TREATED AS MONEY RECEIVED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. T HIS POSITION IS NOT ALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE SOLICITOR RETAINS A LI EN UPON THE BALANCE OF THE MONEY FOR HIS COSTS. THE RESULT OF SOLICITOR HAVING A LIEN ON THE BALANCE OF THE MONEY IS NO MORE THAN A PERSON HAVING A CHARGE ON SOMEBODY ELSES MONEY. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN A SOLICITOR RECEIVES MONEY FROM HIS CLIENT, HE DOES NOT DO SO AS A TRADING RECEIPT BUT RECEIVES MONEY OF THE PRINCIPAL IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN AGENT AND THAT ALSO IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. THE MONEY SO RECEIVED DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROFIT MAKI NG QUALITY ABOUT IT WHEN RECEIVED. IT REMAINS MONEY RECEIVED BY SOLICIT OR AS CLIENTS MONEY ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 7 FOR BEING EMPLOYED IN THE CLIENTS CAUSE. THE SOLIC ITOR REMAINS LIABLE TO ACCOUNT BY THIS MONEY TO HIS CLIENT. MD. NIZAMUDDIN, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE APPELLANT/ REVENUE DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE CASE CITED. WE FIND THAT AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGM ENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL COURT, IN OUR VIEW, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. HENCE, THE APPLICATION AND THE APPEAL ARE DISMISS ED. 3.7. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF CIT VS OM PRAKASH KHAITAN REPORTED IN (2015) 93 CCH 0147 (DEL HC) VID E ORDER DATED 21.7.2015 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT :- 7. IN THE CONSEQUENT APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, T HE ITAT NOTICED INTER ALIA THAT THE ADDITION FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS SIMILAR TO THE ONES MADE BY THE AO FOR AYS 2001-02 AND 2003-04 AND WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND CONCURRED WITH BY THE ITA T. NOTHING HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PERSUADE THE ITAT TO DIFFER F ROM THE NOTHING HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PERSUADE THE ITAT TO DIFF ER FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR TH OSE YEARS. THE ITAT ALSO FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 3 RD FEBRUARY 2006 IN ITA NO.1765/DEL/2002 ( JITENDER SHARMA V. DCI) AND OR DER DATED 25 TH AUGUST 2006 IN ITA NO.3820/DEL/2004( M/S. ANAND & ANAND). THE ITAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ALTHOUGH RES JUDICATA WAS N OT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENC Y REQUIRES THAT UNLESS FACTS OR LAW HAVE/HAS UNDERGONE A CHANGE, THE VIEW TAKEN EARLIER UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES NEEDS MUST BE FOLLOWED. 8. .. .. THE ISSUE OF LAWYERS ACCEPTING MONIES FROM CLIENTS ON ACCOUNT TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES AND APPROPRIATING FEES AS INCOME ONLY UPON COMPLETION OF A CASE HAS BEEN EXAM INED IN THE PAST AND A CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT. T HIS HAS BEEN ADVERTED TO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT. TH E PRINCIPLES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THOSE DECISIONS WERE TAKEN ARE UNEXC EPTIONAL. GIVEN THE MANNER AND FUNCTIONING OF THE LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS , IT IS CORRECT THAT THE CATEOGORISATION OF A RECEIPT CAN TAKE PLACE ONL Y AT THE TIME OF APPROPRIATION I.E IN CASE OF FEES ONLY WHEN THE MAT TER IS OVER OR AS WHEN THE ASSESSEE DECIDES ON THE QUANTUM OF FEES. T HIS WILL NOT BE THE ENTIRE ADVANCE RECEIVED AS AT THE TIME IT IS RECEIV ED IT DOES NOT BEAR ANY PARTICULAR CHARACTERISATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF TR EATING IT AS INCOME . ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 8 3.8. SIMILAR VIEWS WERE TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF MANILAL KHER VS A G LULLA SEVENTH ITO & OTHERS REPO RTED IN (1989) 176 ITR 253 (BOM) AND CIT VS D C GANDHI R EPORTED IN (1994) 210 ITR 929 (GUJ) RESPECTIVELY. THE OPERATIVE PORTION THEREIN IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3.9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS BY THE LEARNED AO IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEA RS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1-2 IN ITA NO. 2000 / KOL / 2010 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 ; GROUND NOS. 1-3 IN ITA NO. 536 / KOL / 2011 FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 O F ASSESSEE APPEALS STANDS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 2137 / KOL /20 10 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 AND GROUND NOS. 1-6 IN ITA NO. 612 / KOL / 2011 FOR AS ST YEAR 2007-08 OF REVENUE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. 3.10. IN RESPECT OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITA NO. 758 / KOL / 2011 ASST YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT , WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAD STATED THAT IN THE EARLIER ASST YEA R I.E ASST YEAR 2005-06, THE CITA HAD TREATED 10% OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST WHICH BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPA RTMENT HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. HE STATES THAT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOU S DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND DEPARTMENTS ULTIMATE STAND ON THIS ISSUE AND THE I NDIVIDUAL FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AND TAKE A DECISI ON AFTER GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DINGLY HE CONCLUDES THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO IN NOT BRINGING TO TAX THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS AS INCOME AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCES TO PROVE AS TO HOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 9 THE REVENUE WARRANTING INVOCATION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT HIMSELF HAD STATED THAT SEVERAL DECISIO NS HAVE BEEN RENDERED ALREADY ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AND HENCE IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCL UDED THAT THE LEARNED AO HAD ONLY TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS IN THE MATTER AND H ENCE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES VS CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 (SC) , WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO I S NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT PASSED ON THIS ISSUE IS QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1-6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 758 /KOL / 2011 FOR ASST YE AR 2006-07 STANDS ALLOWED. ISSUE II DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO RECEIVER ETC 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSES SEE AS A LAWYER HAD ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF VARIOUS OTHER LAWYERS AND RECEIVERS AND MADE PAY MENTS TO THEM, EITHER AS PROFESSIONAL FEES OR AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES , IN THE COURSE OF HIS PROFESSION. THE LEARNED AO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS :- SHRI.J.P.KHAITAN 24,114 SHRI.S.ROYCHOUDHURY 38,250 SHRI.SAMIR ROY CHOUDHURY 37,408 SHRI.TAPAS KR.BANERJEE 35,700 --------------- 1,35,472 4.1. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE T O SRI TAPAS KR. BANERJEE FOR ACTING AS AN ARBITRATOR APPOINTED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND PAYMENTS TO SRI S ROYCHOUDHURY AND SRI SAMIR ROY CHOUDHURY AS RECEIVE R IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE THEREON UNDER ORDERS OF COURT ARE NOT PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PROFESS IONAL SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSE E HAD NO RIGHT OR OBLIGATION TO ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 10 DEDUCT INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS. WITH REGARD TO PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI.J.P.KHAITAN, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT OUT OF R S. 24,114/- , A SUM OF RS. 10,514/- REPRESENTS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON WHICH TAX I S NOT DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND ON THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 13,600/- , TDS COMPLIANCE HA VE BEEN DULY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) CO ULD BE INVOKED. THE LEARNED AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE AFORESAID SUM FOR N ON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CITA . AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 3. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G ADDITION OF RS.1,35,472/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF I.T ACT WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THAT OUT OF THE SAID SUM, A SUM OF RS.75,658/- WAS PAID TO S RI S.ROYCHOWDHURY, RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT; RS.35,700/- WAS PAID AS FEE TO THE ARBITRATO R APPOINTED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND RS.10,514/- WAS PAID TO A SENIOR ADVOCATE TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES A ND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT ANY I NCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD D EDUCTED AND DEPOSITED INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON THE BALANCE AMOU NT OF RS.13,600/-. 4.2. THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE FACTS STATED BY HIM BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PRODUCED EVIDENCES TO THE FACT THAT THE CONCERN ED PERSONS I.E SHRI.SAMIR ROY CHOUDHURY / S.ROY CHOUDHURY( BOTH PARTIES ARE ONE A ND THE SAME) AND SHRI. TAPAS KR. BANERJEE WERE APPOINTED AS ARBITRATOR AND RECEIVER RESPECTIVELY UNDER THE ORDERS OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. HE ALSO PLACED EVIDEN CE ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF HOTEL BILL THAT A SUM OF RS. 10,514/- PAID TO SHRI.J.P.KH AITAN IS ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF HOTEL EXPENSES ON WHICH TAX IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTE D AT SOURCE. HE ALSO PLACED EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF TDS REMITTANCE CHALLAN FOR THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 13,600/- PAID TO SHRI.J.P.KHAITAN AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED TH AT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT NEED TO BE MADE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 11 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM O F RS. 37,738.25 AND NOT RS. 37,408 (AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) TO SHRI.SAMI R ROY CHOUDHURY TOWARDS DEFICIT REGISTRATION CHARGES BY WAY OF DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF A DDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES I KOLKATA BEING THE SHARE OF CLIENT OF THE ASSESSEE A S DIRECTED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. THE NECESSARY PROOF FOR THE SAME IS FI LED IN PAGE 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK BY THE LEARNED AR. ON THIS SUM, NO TAX NEED TO BE DE DUCTED AT SOURCE AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) COULD BE MADE. IN RESPECT OF FEES PAID TO SHRI.J.P.KHAITAN, NO DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS TO BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED HEREINABOVE. IN RESPECT OF REMUNERATION COMPONENT TO THE RECEIVE R SHRI.SAMIR ROY CHOUDHURY (ASSESSEE CLIENTS SHARE IS RS. 38,250/-) AND SHRI. TAPAS KR. BANERJEE (SPECIAL OFFICER), THE SAME ARE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS, WHETHER THE S AID SUMS WERE DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND WHETHER A NY DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD . IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR THAT WHETHER THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE COUNSELS HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESEEE BY HI S CLIENTS. WE HOLD THAT IF THERE IS NO PROFIT ELEMENT IN THIS ACTIVITY AND IS MERE REIM BURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) COULD OPERATE. HOWEVER , THERE IS NO CLARITY ON THE SAME FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, TO SET ASIDE THI S ISSUE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS PAID TO SHRI. SAMIR ROY CHOUDHURY AND SHRI. TAPAS KR. BANER JEE ALONE , TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM AND WHETHER THE SA ME HAS BEEN REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESEE BY HIS CLIENTS WITHOUT ANY PROFIT ELEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 3 ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 12 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2000 / KOL /2010 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ISSUE III DISALLOWANCE OF LICENCE FEES RS. 40,5 00/- 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEA RNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE BENCH THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GRO UND AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS A STATEMENT FROM THE BAR. HENCE THE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL ON T HIS ISSUE IN ITA NO. 2000 / KOL /2010 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ISSUE IV DISALLOWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, TE LEPHONE EXPENSES, CAR MAINTENANCE, MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATION, CAR EXPENSES R EPRESENTING ROAD TAX, INSURANCE ON CAR AND INTEREST ON LOAN FOR CAR 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARN ED AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SOUGHT TO DISALLOW CERTAIN PERCENTAGE O F EXPENSES RANGING FROM 10-15% FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS IN RESPECT OF AFORESAI D EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USAGE OF THE SAME. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE LEARNED C ITA RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PERS ONAL ELEMENT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE VARIOUS ASS ESSMENT YEARS BY RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS. 6.1. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E ASST YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05, THE LEARNED CITA REST RICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5% TOWARDS PERSONAL ELEMENT AND PRAYED FOR SIMILAR DIR ECTION FOR THE ASST YEARS 2005-06 ; 2006-07 & 2007-08 ALSO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE L EARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. 6.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FI ND THE LEARNED CITA HAD DISALLOWED ONLY 5% TOWARDS PERSONAL ELEMENT OF EXPE NDITURES INVOLVED HEREINABOVE IN ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 13 THE EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE HIS ACTION OF INCREASIN G THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WE ALSO FIND THAT AGAINST THE ORDERS PAS SED BY THE LEARNED CITA ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASST YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05, THE REV ENUE HAD NOT CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE TRIBUNAL. IN ANY CASE, IT IS ONLY AN ESTIMAT ED DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 5% TOWARDS PERSONAL ELEMENT. HENCE THE GROUND NOS. 4-7 IN ITA NO. 2000/ KOL /201 0 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 ; GROUND NOS. 3-5 IN ITA NO. 2001/KOL/2010 FOR ASST Y EAR 2006-07 AND GROUND NOS. 4-6 IN ITA NO. 536/KOL/2011 FOR ASST YEAR 2007 -08 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ISSUE V DEPRECIATION ON LEASEHOLD PROPERTY 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEA RNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE BENCH THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GRO UND AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS A STATEMENT FROM THE BAR. HENCE THE GROUND NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IN ITA NO. 2000 / KOL /2010 FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ISSUE VI DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D 8. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS IN RECEIPT OF CERTAIN EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF INCOME U/S 10(38) ON LONG TER M TRANSFER OF SHARES THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGES AFTER SUFFERING SECURITI ES TRANSACTION TAX (STT) ; INCOME U/S 10(38) ON LONG TERM GAINS UPON SALE OF MUTUAL F UNDS AFTER SUFFERING STT ; TAX FREE DIVIDENDS ON SHARES AND UNITS ; TAX FREE INTEREST O N CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BONDS UPON CONVERSION OF UTI 64 ; INTEREST ON TAX FREE BONDS O F PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANIES ; INTEREST ON PUBLIC PROVIDENT FUND AND INTEREST ON RBI RELIEF BONDS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AO INVOKED DISA LLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING 0.5% OF INVESTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RU LE 8D(2)(III) OF THE IT RULES ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 14 DIRECTLY WHICH WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CITA. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR ASST YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 O N VARIOUS GROUNDS. 8.1. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED BY GOING INTO EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF THE EXEMPT INCOME AS STATED SUPRA AND STATED THE FOLLOWING :- WITH REGARD TO LONG TERM GAINS ON SALE/TRANSFER OF SHARES UNDER SECTION 10(38), THE ASSESSEE INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES AS AND BY WAY OF BROKERAGE AND OTHER EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN THE NET REALIZATION, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR BROKERA GE, SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX, SERVICE TAX, STAMP DUTY ETC., AS L ONG TERM GAINS ON SALE/TRANSFER OF SHARES UNDER SECTION 10(38). THUS, INCOME DISCLOSED CONTAINS AN ELEMENT OF EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF BROK ERAGE AND TAX THEREON, STAMP DUTY AND SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX (STT). WITH REGARD TO LONG TERM GAINS ON TRANSFER OF MUTU AL FUNDS, THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A WEALTH MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT WI TH CITI BANK NA. THE ASSESSEE, HAVING AN ON-LINE BANKING ACCOUNT FACILITY, CARRIED OUT SALE TRANSACTIONS ELECTRONICALLY AND PU RSUANT THERETO, THE MUTUAL FUNDS, LYING WITH CITI BANK NA, WERE SOLD, O N SUCH SALE, CITI BANK NA HAS PAID STT AND CREDITED THE NET SALE PROCEEDS TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCUR RED ANY EXPENSES WHATSOEVER FOR EARNING THIS INCOME SAVE AND EXCEPT STT. WITH REGARD TO THE TAX FREE DIVIDENDS ON SHARES AND UNITS, IT IS STATED THAT MOST OF THE SHARES AND UNITS, HELD BY THE ASSE SSEE, ARE IN DEMAT FORM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DEPOSITORY FOR CREDITING DIVIDENDS TO THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ELEC TRONICALLY. IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE DIVIDENDS WERE CREDITED TO THE AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE BEING A GOLD CARD HOLDER OF CITI BANK NA, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ARRANGEMENT WITH TH E CITI BANK NA WHERE UNDER THE REPRESENTATIVES OF CITI BANK NA ATTENDS THE ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 15 OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE ON EVERY WORKING DAY FOR CO LLECTION OF CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDIT URE EVEN FOR DEPOSIT OF CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, NO EXPENSES WHATSOEVER WAS INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RECEIVING TAX FREE INTEREST INCOME ON HIS PUBLIC P ROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT OR EARNING INTEREST ON TAX FREE BONDS ETC. THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SET O FF AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR EARNING THE INCOME FROM PROFESSION AND NO PART OF SUCH EXPENSES ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAX FREE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENSES RELATING TO HANDLING AND MANAGEMENT OF SUCH INVESTMENT PORTFOLI OS ARE HIDDEN IN THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FO R EARNING INCOME IS A MERE CONJECTURE AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASS ESSEE IS A CORPORATE LAWYER AND WITH HIS OWN EXPERIENCE AND EX PERTISE HAS EARNED THE TAX FREE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF MA NAGES HIS OWN PORTFOLIO AND NONE OF THE OFFICE STAFF OF THE ASSES SEE HAVE ANY ACUMEN OR KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL OR INTELLIGENCE IN TH E PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT OR THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION. IT IS STA TED THAT THE OFFICE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INVOLVED IN EARNING OF THE TAX FREE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AS IT IS APPLICABLE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1962 ONWARDS AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO HAD DIRECTLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE IT RULES, WITH OUT COMPLYING WITH THE ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 16 REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED IN RULE 8D(1). FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(1) ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELO W:- RULE 8D : [METHOD FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RE LATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. 8D. (1) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OF A PREVIOUS YEAR, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH (A) THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; OR (B) THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF T HE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR, HE SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROV ISIONS OF SUB-RULE (2). 8.3. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LEARNE D AO HAD TO FIRST RECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME OR THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO HAD NOT CONSI DERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL AND HE HAS STRAIGHT AWAY EMBARKED UPON COMPUTIN G DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. WITHOUT RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(1), HE CANNOT DIRECTLY PROCEED TO IMPLEMENT RULE 8D(2) AND ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THA T THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C IT VS ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA IN G.A.NO. 2990 OF 2013 ITAT NO. 157 OF 2013 DATED 8.1 .2014 , WHEREIN IT WAS ORDERED AS BELOW:- THE COURT: THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE IN TH IS APPEAL IS A JUDGMENT AND ORDER 14 TH MAY, 2013 BY WHICH THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVE NUE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE THUMB RULE PRESCRIB ED IN RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SEC TION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT FIRST RECORDING THAT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 17 THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITU RE HAD BEEN INCURRED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX DIRECTED AS FOLLOWS: THEREFORE, HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY HIM U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOW ED. IT IS AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX THAT THE REVENUE APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBU NAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH R EGARD TO EXPENDITURE OR NO EXPENDITURE, AS THE CASE MAY BE , IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME, THE AO HAS TO INDICATE COGENT REAS ONS FOR THE SAME. FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND STRAIGHT A WAY EMBARKED UPON COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RU LES ON PRESUMING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AT % OF THE TOTAL VALUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION, IN THE CASE OF J.K INVESTORS(BOMBAY) LTD, SUPRA, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER CHALLENGE. THE APPEAL AND THE APPLICATION ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8.4. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS STATED SUPRA, WE DELET E THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1-2 IN ITA NO. 2001/KO L/2010 FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 AND GROUND NOS. 7-8 IN ITA NO. 536/KOL /2011 FOR ASST YEAR 2007- 08 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED. ISSUE VII RESTRICTION OF ADDITION U/S 94(7) OF TH E ACT ON SALE OF SHARES 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SHORT TE RM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 1,99,330/- AND THAT THE SAID LOSS ON SALE OF SECURITIES WAS AD JUSTED AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,93,769/- WHICH HAD SUFFERED SECURITIES TRA NSACTION TAX (STT). THE LEARNED ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 18 AO IGNORED THE LOSS OF ABOVE SECURITIES WHICH WERE SOLD / TRANSFERRED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AND SINCE THE DIVIDEND FROM THE ABO VE SECURITIES WERE CLAIMED. FURTHER THE LEARNED AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF RS. 1,34,715/ - SECTION 94(7) WHERE- (A) ANY PERSON BUYS OR ACQUIRES ANY SECURITIES OR UNIT WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE RECORD DATE; [(B) SUCH PERSON SELLS OR TRANSFERS- (I) SUCH SECURITIES WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AFT ER SUCH DATE; OR (II) SUCH UNIT WITHIN A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS AFTER SU CH DATE;] ( C) THE DIVIDEND OR INCOME ON SUCH SECURITIES OR U NIT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY SUCH PERSON IS EXEMPT, THEN, THE LOSS, IF ANY, ARISING TO HIM ON ACCOUNT O F SUCH PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES OR UNIT, TO THE EXTENT SUCH LOSS DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND OR INCOME RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE ON SUCH S ECURITIES OR UNIT, SHALL BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING HIS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX.] 9.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD CERTAIN SHARES WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR PLEADED THAT TH E LOSS OF RS. 1,54,690/- ON THE SHARES OF FEDERAL BANK LTD TOOK PLACE OWING TO PURC HASE OF CUM BONUS SHARES AND SALE OF EX BONUS SHARES. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THA T THE LEARNED AO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESEE HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT MENTIONED SHARE SCRIPTS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT IN SEVERAL CASES, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND NOT ON THE SHARES SO LD BUT ON THE SHARES CONTINUED TO BE RETAINED BY HIM. IT WAS ALSO FURTHER PLEADED THA T DISALLOWANCE U/S 94(7) , IF ANY, COULD BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED. WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CITA HAD RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 94 (7) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BY DULY APPRECIATING THE TRUE INTENTION BEHIND INTRODUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 94(7) OF THE ACT. HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CITA IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS.2137/K/10, 612/KOL/11,2000 & 2001/K/10 & & 758, 536/K/11 ACIT,CIR-54, KOL VS. SRI PAWAN KR. JHUNJHUNWALA, C-AM 19 ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 2-3 IN ITA NO. 2137/KO L/2010 OF REVENUE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 10. TO SUM UP, THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AS BELOW:- ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSEES APPEAL/ DEPARTMENTS APPEAL RESULT 2000/KOL/2010 2005-06 ASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY ALLO WED 2137/KOL/2010 2005-06 DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL DISMISSED 758/KOL/2011 2006-07 ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST U/S. 263 ALLOWED 2001/KOL/2010 2006-07 ASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY ALLO WED 536/KOL/2011 2007-08 ASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY ALLOW ED 612/KOL/2011 2007-08 DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL DISMISSED THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/11/201 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.. THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT : ACIT, CIR-54, 3 GOV T PLACE(W), KOL-1. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE- SRI PAWAN KUMAR JHUNJHU NWALA, 5 TH FL., HASTINGS CHAMBERS 7C KIRAN SHANKAR ROY ROAD, KOL-1. 3 4.. /THE CIT, / THE CIT(A) FIT FOR PUBLICATION 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH SD/- SD/- 6. GUARD FILE. M.S MBG (JM) (AM) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR ** PRADIP SPS SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) SD/- (M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATE 6 /11/2015