Shri Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera, Surat V. The Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Surat

ITA 2189/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6231 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHAGINVIR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP AT SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 VASANTBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA 1, VRUSHAL NAGAR OPP: KATARGAM POLICE STN. KATARGAM ROAD SURAT 395 004. PAN : ABTPG 2033 P VS. DCIT, CIR.8 SURAT. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DHAGINVIR YADAV, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 10/03/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/04/2017 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-V DATED 11.4.2014 PASSED FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2 008-09. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.5,28,066/- IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS DIRECTOR LAXMI DIAMOND PVT. LTD. HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 31.3.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,42,49,460/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE. ON SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.18,77,520/- UNDE R SECTION 24(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT S MT.CHAMPABEN V. GAJERA (WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE) HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM I CICI BANK FOR PURCHASE FLAT NO.21 AND 22 AT SURAJ APARTMENT, MUMB AI. LATER ON SHE HAS TRANSFERRED THESE FLATS TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE HE R VASIATNAMA , HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME OWNER OF THESE FLATS . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THESE FLATS WERE POSSESSED BY HIM AND NOT RENTED OUT. ACCORDING TO THE AO FOR SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM INTEREST EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING RS.1.50 LAKHS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT. WHEN THIS ASPECT WAS CON FRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, HE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY, BUT ULTIMATELY HAS ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,27,520/- OUT OF THE CLAIM OF RS.18,77,520/-. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.1.5 0 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD A REFUND FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AM OUNTING TO RS.13,40,740/-. IT CONTAINED INTEREST COMPONENT OF RS.32,700/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO INCLUDE THIS INTEREST COMPONENT, AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY BY WAY OF A LETTER DATED 4.2.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REPLY DAT ED 8.2.2013. THE REPLY HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO, BUT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, AND THEREFORE , HE DESERVES TO BE VISITED WITH PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 3 RS.5,28,066/-, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX SOUGH T TO BE EVADED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRIN G ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO F OLD SUBMISSIONS. IN HIS FIRST FOLD OF SUBMISSIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CLARITY AS TO WHETHER PENALTY WAS IMPOSED FOR FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SI NCE THE AO HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSABLE UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. (282-ITR-642) (GUJ ARAT) AMRUT TUBEWELL CO. (275-CTR-86) (GUJARAT) JYOTI LTD. (216-TAXMAN-64) (GUJARAT) WHITEFORD INDIA LTD. (219-TAXMAN-98) (GUJARAT) MUKESHCHANDRA LAKDAWALA (4-ITR (TRIB)-307) (AHM EDABAD) SANDHYA GADKARI SHARMA (181-TTJ-462) (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL) 5. IN HIS NEXT FOLD OF SUBMISSIONS, HE POINTED THAT THERE WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT WHOLE INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE, HE MADE THE CLAIM. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTIONS, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: SIDDHARAJ DEVELOPERS P.LTD.(ITA NO.185/AHD/2008 ) UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION (281-ITR-266) (GUJARAT) ORIENTAL POWER CABLE LTD. (219-CTR-62) (RAJASTH AN) SSP PVT. LTD. (302-ITR-43) (PUNJAB & HARYANA) PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS P.LTD., 348 ITR 306 6. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED U PON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE W ATERHOUSE COOPERS P.LTD., 348 ITR 306. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 HAS DIRECT ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 4 BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, IT IS PERTI NENT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE SECTION. '271. FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTIC ES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) OR THE CIT IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (A) AND (B)** ** ** (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY. (I)AND (INCOME-TAX OFFICER,)** ** ** (III) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OR CL AUSE (D), IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF T AX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FRINGE BENEFIT THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF SUCH INCOME OR FRINGE BENEFITS: EXPLANATION 1- WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERI AL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT, (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR O FFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE CIT TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATI ON IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THE N, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME O R SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB- SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPE CT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 8. A BARE PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION WOULD REVEAL THA T FOR VISITING ANY ASSESSEE WITH THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DURING THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THEM SHOULD BE SATISFIED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS; (I) CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 5 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS FAR AS THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IS CONCERNED, THE PENALTY IMPOSED UN DER THIS SECTION CAN RANGE IN BETWEEN 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS A RESULT OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE OTHER MOST IMPORTANT FE ATURES OF THIS SECTION IS DEEMING PROVISIONS REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME. THE SECTION NOT ONLY COVERED THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA S CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, IN CERT AIN SITUATION, EVEN WITHOUT THERE BEING ANYTHING TO INDICATE SO, STATUT ORY DEEMING FICTION FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME COMES INTO PLAY. THIS DEE MING FICTION, BY WAY OF EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) POSTULATE S TWO SITUATIONS; (A) FIRST WHETHER IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO T HE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE IS FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LEARNED CIT(APPEA L); AND, (B) WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACT, MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION AND THE ASSESSEE FAILS, TO PROVE THAT S UCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL T HE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOT AL INCOME. UNDER FIRST SITUATION, THE DEEMING FICTION WOULD COME TO PLAY IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OR BY ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY GIVING A CATEGORICAL FINDIN G TO THE EFFECT THAT EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. IN THE SECOND SITUATION, THE DEEMING FICTION WOULD COME TO PLAY BY THE FAILURE O F THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND IN ADDITION TO THIS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BONA FIDE AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMP UTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE T WO SITUATIONS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION 1 APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) MAKES IT CLEAR ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 6 THAT THAT WHEN THIS DEEMING FICTION COMES INTO PLAY IN THE ABOVE TWO SITUATIONS THEN THE RELATED ADDITION OR DISALLOWAN CE IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC TION 271(1)(C) WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE REPRESENTING THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE CO NTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS FIRST F OLD OF CONTENTION THAT THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED CHARGES WHICH IS TO BE LEV IED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY, T HE LD.AO HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO WOULD MAKE THIS ASPECT CLEAR: PAGE NO.25 . ON 15/12/2010 THE ASSESSEES AR DID NOT FURNIS H ANY REPLY ON THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE AND AGREED ON THE ABOVE DIS ALLOWANCE. THEREFORE THE EXCESS INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE OF RS.17,27,520/- U/S.24(B) OF THE IT ACT IS DISALLOWE D AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DISALLOWANCE RS.17,27,520/- FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME AND CONCEALED THE INCOME OF RS.17,27,520/-. THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 HAS B EEN INITIATED ON THIS ISSUE. 10. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR A TTENTION TOWARDS LETTER DATED 29.12.2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS NOT ICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT MIGHT BE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, BUT THIS IS NOT THE SHOW CAUSE NO TICE ON WHICH HE HAS ADJUDICATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS A LETT ER ON THE DATE OF PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS, HE HAS ISSUED ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 7 ONE MORE NOTICE ON 4.2.2013 WHICH WAS DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDING OF THE AO TO THIS EXTENT IS WORTH TO NO TE, AND IT READS AS UNDER: 4. BASED ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE LD. CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.24(B) OF RS. 1 7,27,520/- IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17.03.2011. THEREAFTER VI DE LETTER DATED 04.02.2013 THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A FRESH OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD IN RESPECT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U /S. 271(L)(C) ON ADDITION OF INTEREST U/S.24(B) CONFIRMED IN APPEAL OF RS. 17,27,520/- AND INTEREST ON I.T. REFUND OF RS.32,70 0/- . THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY DATED 08.02.2013 HAS STATED A S UNDER: (III) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 17 ,27,520/-, BEING THE EXCESS INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN ABOVE RS. 1,50, 000/- THE LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 24(B) FOR SELF OCCUPIED PROPER TY. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HOUSING LOAN INTEREST OF RS.18,77,520/- U/S . 24(B), UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT ENTIRE INTEREST IS DEDUCTIBLE. (III) AS FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.37,200/- IS CONCERNE D, IT IS THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON INCOME TAX REFUND. A SSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN IT INADVERTENTLY. ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMIT TED ANY DEFAULT FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE TO PENALIZED. THUS, PENALTY PROCEEDING IN THIS POINT KINDLY MAY DROP 11. THE LETTER DATED 4.2.2013 HAS NOT BEEN PLACED O N RECORD BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E HAS BEEN REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A PERUSAL OF THE REPLY WOULD INDIC ATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONFRONTED WITH SPECIFIC CHARGES OF FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, ON THE STRENGTH OF THE JUD GMENT REFERRED TO BY THE LD.COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT DRAW ANY BENEFI T ON FACTS. THE CHARGE WAS SPECIFIC AND FROM THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE IT IS NOT DISCERNABLE THAT THERE WAS CONFUSION IN HIS MIND WHILE PREPARIN G HIS DEFENSE. AS FAR AS BONA FIDE MISTAKE IS CONCERNED, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS P.LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND T HAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE AS TO WHAT HAS OPERATED IN THE MIND OF ASSESSEE WHILE FILING R ETURN WHICH GOADED ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 8 THE ASSESSEE TO COMMIT MISTAKE. IN THAT CASE, ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THE AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB TH ERE WAS A SPECIFIC MENTION THAT PROVISION FOR GRATUITY WILL NOT BE ALL OWABLE. HOWEVER, WHILE FILING RETURN, THIS PROVISION WAS NOT ADDED B ACK IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS MISTAKE HAS HAPPENED, THEN IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT TH ERE WERE AROUND 1000 EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT WHICH MAINTAINS DAY-TO-DAY ACCOUNTS, PAY-ROLL ETC. THERE WERE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE TAKEN IN THE ROLE FOR AN ANTICIP ATED WORK. THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS OF AN APPROVED GRATUITY FUND CREAT ED FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE PROVISION PERTAINING TO GRATUITY FOR TH OSE EMPLOYEES WAS REFERRED AS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A DEDUCTION. HOWEVER , IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT ADDED BACK. IT WAS AN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE CLERK OR AN EMPLOYEE, WHO HAS MADE THE COMPU TATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IT WAS AN HUMAN ERROR BECAUSE IN THE AUDIT REPORT SPECIFIC MENTION OF SECTION 40A(7) WAS MADE WHEREIN IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE PROVISION MADE FOR GRATUITY IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT CONSIDERED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL I TS INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING THAT SORT HAS BEEN POINTED OU T. WE HAVE CONFRONTED THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN WHAT HAS OPERATED IN THE MINDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE FILED THE RETU RN. WHAT LED THE ASSESSEE TO INCLUDE THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. NEITHER IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT ON A DVICE OF TAX CONSULTANT, IT WAS CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE , NOR IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS , HE HAS SIGNED THE RETURN UNDER A BONA FIDE MISTAKE, WHICH WAS PREPARED BY THE CLERK IN THE TAX CONSULTANT OFFICE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT DRAW BENEFIT OF THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION REFERRED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACTS I N RIGHT PERSPECTIVE ITA NO.2189/AHD/2014 9 AND WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FI NDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH APRIL, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER