M/s.South India Corporation Ltd, Cochin V. The Jt CIT, Cochin

ITA 231/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7513 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Proportionate interest; Assessment record; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 234B; 14A; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 / ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-2010, 2010-11 AND 2011-12] SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. RANI MEYYAMMAI BUILDING 5, K.P.K. MENON ROAD WILLINGDON ISLAND COCHIN -3. PAN : AAADCS 3193 C VS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4 ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ( APP ELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI K.P. GOPAKUMAR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/01/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/02/2016 !/ O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THRE E DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, KOCH I DATED 8.1.2015, 8.1.2015 AND 23.2.2015 FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. SINCE ISSUES IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THER EFORE, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING, ENGINEERING CONTRACTS AND TRADING IN TE XTILES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 30.09.2009 DEC LARING A TOTAL INCOME OF ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 2 RS.42,39,21,468/- AND DEEMED INCOME OF RS. 45,31,70 ,547/-. THE INCOME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED TO RS.42,30,38,867/- AND DEEME D INCOME TO RS. 44,68,62,601/-. 3. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 BY MAKING CER TAIN ADDITIONS AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 50,27,26 ,870/-. OUT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE CON CERNED WITH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 28,00,26 6/- AND DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 37 OF RS. 7,65,74,554/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2011, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.01.2015 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCES PERTAINING TO SECTION 14A AND SECTION 37 OF THE ACT STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES I.E. RS.28,00,266/- UNDER S ECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND RS.7,65,74,554/- UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. WE SH ALL TAKE UP THE GROUND NOS.3 TO 7 IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE ISSUE RELATE S TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,65,74,554/- U/S.37 OF THE ACT OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN INTEREST EXPEND ITURE OF RS. 7,86,62,297/- DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE BREAKUP OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS GIVEN AT PAGE 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: INTEREST EXPENSES HEAD OFFICE RANI MEYYAMMAI ACHI OF CHETTINAND TRUST 109992 ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 3 PENAL INTERST TO IT DEPARTMENT 5589062 RANI MEYYAMMAI RECREATION CLUB 13 CHENNAI TRANSPORT SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT DELAY PAYMENT 7136 TUTICORIN DELAY PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX 13014 TEXTILE DIVISION UNSECURED LOAN FROM DR.M.A.M. RAMASWAMY AVL 2400000 ENGINEERING DIVISION INCOME TAX DEPT DELAY PAYMENT OF TDS 3772 SERVICE TAX DEPT. DELAY PAYMENT 4987 8127976 CHENNAI TRANSPORT SECURED LOAN FROM BANK 70534321 78662297 6. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE A TOTAL ADVANCE OF RS. 401 CRORES (APPROX) DURING THE COURS E OF THE YEAR. OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, RS. 360 CRORES (APPROX) HAD BEEN ADVAN CED ON INTEREST FREE BASIS TO CHETTINAD INTERNATIONAL COAL TERMINAL PVT. LTD., A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE (SPV) COMPANY. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 41 CRORES WAS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS OTHER MINOR, PROJECTS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF C APITAL EXPENDITURE AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. FURTHERMORE, IT W AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SINCE THE ADVANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY, THE PRO PORTIONATE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS WAS TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 3 7 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO DIS ALLOW THE ENTIRE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.7,86,62,297/-, EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,87,743/- ALREADY DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14 A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 4 DISALLOWANCE WAS THEREFORE COMPUTED AT RS. 7,65,74, 554/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NO INCOME FROM DEBENTURES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AMOUNT A DVANCED AND THEREFORE THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS ALLOWABLE. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE MADE TO THE AFORESAID COMPANIES WAS OUT OF THE OWN FUNDS/INTERN AL ACCRUALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS. HE ASSE RTS THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAD NOT BEEN DIVERTED FOR INTEREST FREE ADVAN CES. HE HAS BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE BREAKUP OF THE INTEREST AND FINANC E CHARGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR. IT IS THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING, TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING OF COAL ETC. HE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT THE SPV COMPANY IN WHICH THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS MADE IS IN T HE SIMILAR BUSINESS AND HAS A MECHANIZED HANDLING SYSTEM OF BERTHING COAL, AUTO MATED TRANSPORTATION TO YARD, STORAGE OF COAL AND SHIPMENT OF COAL TO THE F INAL CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS SOLE INVESTOR IN THE SAID SPV AND THE INVESTMEN T WAS FOR FURTHERANCE OF BUSINESS OBJECTIVES AND GROWTH OF THE COMPANY. TO S UPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A BOT AG REEMENT WITH THE ENNORE PORT LIMITED FOR 30 YEARS AND TRANSPORTATION . ALSO, LOADING AND UNLOADING OF COAL FROM ENNORE PORT TO VARIOUS CUSTO MERS IS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT IN TH E SPV COMPANY WAS FOR IMPROVING PROFITABILITY AND FURTHERING GROWTH OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS TO ARGUE THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES ARE AGAINST THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF L AW. ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 5 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THE INTERES T FREE ADVANCE AND THE INVESTMENT MADE WAS IN NON PRODUCTIVE ASSETS. THE L D. DR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. V.I. BABY & CO., (2002) 254 ITR 248 (KER), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST FREE AMOUNT ADVANCED WAS NOT FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSES. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY ASSESS ING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR TH E PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION. SECTION 37 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE AS SESSEE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT, 288 ITR 1, ENUNCIATED THE TEST OF 'COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY' AND OBSERVED THAT WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IN THE CASE OF INTEREST FREE LOAN IS WHETHER T HE SAME WAS MADE A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, AND IF IT WAS SO MADE, TH E SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE LEGAL POSITION STATED IN THE AFORESAID CASE IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW:- 25. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER THE HIGH COUR T NOR THE TRIBUNAL NOR OTHER AUTHORITIES HAVE EXAMINED WHETHER THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE SISTER-CONCERN WAS BY WA Y OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. 26. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE EXPRESSION 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS' IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN THE EXPRESSION 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING PROFITS' VIDE CIT VS. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT VS. BIRLA COTTON SPINNI NG & WEAVING MILLS LTD. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), ETC. ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 6 27. THE HIGH COURT AND THE OTHER AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED THE MONEY T O ITS SISTER- CONCERN, AND WHAT THE SISTER-CONCERN DID WITH THIS MONEY, IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, BU T THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 28. IT IS TRUE THAT THE BORROWED AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN BUSINESS, BUT HAD BEEN ADVA NCED AS INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO ITS SISTER-CONCERN. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION , THAT FACT IS NOT REALLY RELEVANT. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER THE AS SESSEE ADVANCED SUCH AMOUNT TO ITS SISTER-CONCERN AS A MEASURE OF COMMER CIAL EXPEDIENCY. .. 31. WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. [(2002) 174 CTR (DEL) 1 88 : (2002) 254 ITR 377 (DEL) THAT ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THER E WAS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS (WH ICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF) , THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARMCHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME T HE ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMI ZE ITS PROFIT. THE IT AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AUTHORITIE S MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN VIEWPOINT BUT THAT OF A P RUDENT BUSINESSMAN. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, WE HAVE TO SEE THE TRANSFE R OF THE BORROWED FUNDS TO A SISTER-CONCERN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW WHETHER T HE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED FOR EARNING PROFITS. 32. WE WISH TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT OUR OPI NION THAT IN EVERY CASE INTEREST ON BORROWED LOAN HAS TO BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE ADVANCES IT TO A SISTER-CONCERN. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPECTIVE CASE. FOR INSTANCE, IF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SISTER-CONCERN UTILIZE THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO IT BY THE ASSESSES F OR THEIR PERSONAL BENEFIT, OBVIOUSLY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT, SUCH MON EY WAS ADVANCED AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. HOWEVER, MONEY CA N BE SAID TO BE ADVANCED TO A SISTER-CONCERN FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIE NCY IN MANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES (WHICH NEED NOT BE ENUMERATED HERE). HOWEVER, WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A HOLDING COMPANY HAS A DEEP INTERE ST IN ITS SUBSIDIARY, ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 7 AND HENCE IF THE HOLDING COMPANY ADVANCES BORROWED MONEY TO A SUBSIDIARY AND THE SAME IS USED BY THE SUBSIDIARY F OR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, ORDIN ARILY BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON ITS BORROWED LOANS. 10. APPLYING THE AFORESAID RATIO TO THE PRESENT C ASE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATI ON, CLEARING AND FORWARDING OF COAL AT ENNORE PORT. THE SPV COMPANY IN WHICH TH E INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS MADE IS IN THE SIMILAR BUSINESS. THE SPV HAS A SYSTEM OF BERTHING COAL, AUTOMATED TRANSPORTATION TO YARD, STORAGE OF COAL A ND SHIPMENT OF COAL TO THE FINAL CUSTOMERS. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMO NSTRATED THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF SUCH ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN AS THE INTEG RATION MIGHT LEAD TO BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CONTENTIONS R AISED BY THE REVENUE LACKS MERIT AS IT FAILED TO LOOK INTO THE INVESTMEN T FROM THE ANGLE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY BY SIMPLY SAYING THAT INVESTM ENT MADE IN OTHER COMPANIES CANNOT RELATE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT HAS BEEN TIME AND AGAIN HELD THAT THE REVENUE MUST NOT ATTEMPT TO SIT IN THE ARM CHAIR OF A BUSINESSMAN AND OBSERVE THE PROFITABILITY OF AN INV ESTMENT DECISION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO S HOW THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE PURPOS E MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IN OUR VIEW, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS AND EVEN THE NECESSITY OF THE AFORESAID I NVESTMENT. THE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING BORROWED FUNDS DURING THE YE AR AND AT THE SAME TIME ADVANCING INTEREST FREE LOANS, STOOD DISCHARGED BY SHOWING THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (P) LTD. VS. CIT 2015 (1 1) TMI 1314 (SC), FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF S.A. BUILDERS (SUPRA) HEL D AS UNDER: IN THE PROCESS, THE COURT ALSO AGREED THAT THE VIE W TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN 'CIT V. DALMIA CEMENT (B) LTD. [2002 (254) ITR 377] ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 8 WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT ONCE IT IS EST ABLISHED THAT THERE IS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF BU SINESS (WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITS ELF), THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-C HAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRE CTORS AND ASSUME THE ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITU RE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT FURTHER HELD T HAT NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE HIS PROFIT AND THAT TH E INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AUTHORITIE S MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN VIEW POINT BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. APPLYING THE AFORESAID RATIO TO THE FACTS OF THIS C ASE AS ALREADY NOTED ABOVE, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE ADVANCE TO M/S. HERO FIBRES LIMITED BECAME IMPERATIVE AS A BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN VIEW OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MARGIN TO M/S. HERO FIBRES LIMITED TO MEET THE WORKING CAPITAL FOR MEETING ANY CASH IT WOULD ALSO BE SIGNIFICANT TO MENTION AT THIS STA GE THAT, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD OFF-LOADED ITS SHARE HOLDI NG IN THE SAID M/S. HERO FIBRES LIMITED TO VARIOUS COMPANIES OF OSWAL G ROUP AND AT THAT TIME, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOT ONLY REFUNDED BACK T HE ENTIRE LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. HERO FIBRES LIMITED BY THE ASSESSEE B UT THIS WAS REFUNDED WITH INTEREST. IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AFORESAID I NTEREST WAS RECEIVED, SAME WAS SHOWN AS INCOME AND OFFERED FOR TAX. INSOFAR AS THE LOANS TO DIRECTORS ARE CONCERNED, IT COULD NOT BE DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CRE DIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THE SAID ADVANCE OF 34 LAKHS WAS GIVEN. REMARKABLY, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT (APPEAL) IN HIS ORDER, THE COMPANY HAD RESERVE/SURPLUS TO THE TUNE OF ALMOST 15 CRORES AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD IN ANY CASE, UTILISE THOSE F UNDS FOR GIVING ADVANCE TO ITS DIRECTORS. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION, THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS ALLOWED, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT A ND RESTORING THAT OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 11. THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.I. BABY (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE THEREIN ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 9 HAD TRANSFERRED LARGE AMOUNTS TO THE PERSONAL ACCOU NTS OF THE PARTNERS AND RELATIVES OF THE PARTNERS. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT O BSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE H ELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED A LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT MAD E AND THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 12. LOOKING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE, THERE IS NO FINDI NG EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS DU RING THE YEAR HAD BEEN DIVERTED FOR ADVANCING INTEREST FREE LOANS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN THE BREAKUP OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CARRIED OUT BY IT. THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS AD MITTED. HAVING ACCEPTED THE SAME, THE REVENUE CANNOT COME BACK AND DISALLOW THE ENTIRE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF THE YEAR, IN VIEW OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOTEL SAVERA, 239 ITR 795, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 8. FURTHER, THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE ITO OR THE AAC THAT THE MONEY BORROWED HAS BEEN SPENT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ITO WAS ON THE BASIS THAT THE MONEY ADVANCED TO SAVERA HOTEL (P) LTD., SHOULD CARRY NOTIONAL INTEREST OF 10 PER CENT AND IN THAT VIEW HE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 772,769. THE AAC HE LD THAT THE ADVANCE TO SAVERA HOTELS (P) LTD., WHICH WOULD HAVE COME PROPORTIONATELY OUT OF THE OWN FUNDS AS WELL AS BOR ROWED FUNDS IS NOT BASED ON ANY PRINCIPLE OF LAW. THERE IS NO FINDING EVEN BY THE AAC THAT THE MONEY BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY DIV ERTED FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEAR FIND ING BOTH BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE FINDING OF THE APPELLAT E AUTHORITY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE ITO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS. 72,769 OR BY THE AAC A SUM OF RS. 30,063/. ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 10 13. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN FROM T HE BALANCE SHEET THAT IT HAD ITS OWN SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE C APITAL OF RS. 75 CRORES, RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF RS. 250 CRORES AND NET OF S UNDRY CREDITORS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS. 70 CRORES TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN THE SPV COMPANY. 14. IN VIEW THEREOF, GROUNDS NOS. 3 TO 7 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 15. AS REGARDS, GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 PERTAIN TO TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 28,00,266/-UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED CERTAIN INC OMES SUCH AS DIVIDEND, AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SHARE INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM ETC. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE SAME ARE CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED SECTION 14A AND WITH THE AID OF RULE 8D(II) AND (III) DISALLOWED THE EXPENSE OF RS. 28,00,266/-. OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8 D(II) WAS RS. 20,87,743/- FROM THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE AND RS. 7,12,523/- UNDER RULE 8D(III). 16. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE INV ESTMENT MADE IN GROUP CONCERNS I.E. 99% HOLDING IN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS NAME LY CHETTTINAD STUD & AGRICULTURAL FARMS AND SHOLAVARAM STUD FARMS WERE O UT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND HENCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDITION OF SATISFACTION ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN THE PRESENT CASE, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME FROM ALL THE INVESTMENTS T HAT IT WAS HOLDING IN THE RELEVANT A.Y. AND THEREFORE ONLY SUCH INVESTMENTS S HOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A CANNOT BE MADE WHEN ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 11 THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME AND THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATION UND ER RULE 8D. HE HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS JUDGMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS. 17. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS RELIED UPON ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . HE HAS FURTHER REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT & ANR., 328 ITR 81. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTIO N IS MANDATORY AND THE SAME IS WELL SETTLED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 347 I TR 272 (DEL). IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME HAD BEEN EARNE D BY IT. HE HAS FURTHER RECORDED THAT FOR THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME, THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT ASCERTAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT ONLY CERTAIN INVESTMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RU LE 8D DISALLOWANCE AND NOT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CONDITION OF SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 1 4A IS COMPLIED WITH IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE OF DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LT D. VS. CIT, 370 ITR 187, THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ITS FUNDS IN SHARES AND THAT THE DIVIDEND WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ETC. WHICH WERE DIR ECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE ENT IRE EXPENDITURE TO THE PROFIT OR LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTED THAT SINCE THE EXEMPT INCOME DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOM E, THE EXPENDITURE ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 12 WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME COULD NOT BE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT OR LOSS A CCOUNT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, CONSTITUTED A CLEAR FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A AS WELL AS SUB-RULE(L) OF RULE 8D THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ACCOUNTS ASSESSEE AS IS EX FACIE APPARE NT FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3). 19. THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO A C HART SHOWING THE INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARN AN Y TAX FREE INCOME. THE DISALLOWANCE CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A IS WITH RESPECT TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. RULE 8D SETS OUT THE ME THOD FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WH ICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. RULE 8D(2)(II) PR OVIDES FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY RELAT ABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT. RULE 8D(2)(III) PROVIDES FOR THE DISALL OWANCE TO BE CALCULATED AS PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED VERSUS CIT, ITA N O. 749/2014 (DHC) HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME' APPEARING IN SECTION 14A ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUA L RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS OBSER VED AS UNDER: 23. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED HEREINB EFORE THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FRAMED BY HOLDING THAT THE EXP RESSION 'DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME' IN SECTION 14A OF TH E ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMP T INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 13 20. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE INVEST MENTS WHICH HAVE NOT YIELDED ANY EXEMPT INCOME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE P URPOSES OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CA SE OF REI AGRO LTD. VS. DCIT, 98 DTR 339, CONSIDERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHE THER THE INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH NO TAX FREE INCOME HAD BEEN EARNED CAN B E INCLUDED IN THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF RU LE 8D(2)(II) AND (III). IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7.1 IN ANY CASE, THE WORKING OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SUB-PART (II) OF SUB- CLAUSE (2) OF RULE AS MADE BY THE AO ALSO S UFFERS FROM A SUBSTANTIAL ERROR IN SO FAR AS IN THE SAID RULE IN REGARD TO THE NUMERATOR B, THE WORDS USED ARE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE INVE STMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE T OTAL INCOME AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON THE FIRST DAY AND IN THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HERE THE AO HAS TAKEN INTO CONSI DERATION THE INVESTMENT OF RS.103 CRORES MADE THIS YEAR, WHICH H AS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND OR EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS ONLY THE AVERAGE O F THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT FROM WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED WH ICH IS NOT FALLING WITHIN THE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME THAT IS TO BE C ONSIDERED. THIS IS WHY THE QUESTION OF SATISFACTION IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D(1), THAT RELATES TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT IS NOT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED BUT IT IS THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED. A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO WHY THE TERM 'AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTM ENT' IS THEN USED. THE TERM AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WOULD B E TO TAKE CARE OF CASES WHERE THERE IS THE ISSUE OF DIVIDEND STRIPING . IN ANY CASE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRE D ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME, THE FINDINGS OF THE ID. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE STAND CONFIRMED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(III), WHI CH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S HAND, A PERUSAL OF THE SAID PROVISION ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 14 SHOWS THAT WHAT IS DISALLOWABLE UNDER RULE 8D (2)(I II) IS THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVES TMENT THE INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE T OTAL INCOME. THUS, UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (III), WHAT IS DISALLOWED IS PER CENTAGE OF THE NUMERATOR B IN RULE 8D(2)(II). AGAIN THIS IS TO BE CALCULATED IN THE SAME LINE AS MENTIONED EARLIER IN RESPECT OF NUMERATOR B IN RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE ACT. 8.1 THUS, NOT ALL INVESTMENTS BECOME THE SUBJECT-MA TTER OF CONSIDERATION WHEN COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC TION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A RE AD WITH RULE 8D IS TO BE IN RELATION TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND THIS CAN BE DONE ONLY BY TAKING INTO CON SIDERATION THE INVESTMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THIS INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D(2)(III), WHICH IS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL, IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECOMPUTATION IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTION GIVEN ABOV E. NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(I) AND (II) CAN BE MADE IN THIS CASE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 21. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL THE INVESTMENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BECOME SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION WHILE COMPUT ING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE MATTER HAD NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE A FORESAID VIEW POINT. THE ISSUE OF SECTION 14A DISALLOWANCE, IS THEREFORE, RE STORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO SHALL CALCULATE THE DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A KEEPING IN MIND THE LAW DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE. THE AO SHALL FURTHER EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE IN CHETTINAD STUD & AGRICULTURAL FARMS AND SHOLAVARAM STUD FARMS WERE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISALLOWANC E UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 15 22. IN VIEW THEREOF, GROUNDS NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. 24. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.231/COCHIN/2015 WHERE THE ISSUE RELATES TO THE D ISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.230/COCHIN/201 5, AND THEREFORE, OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE I N THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO EXCEPT THE AMOUNT WHICH ARE REFERRED IN THE ORDER O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF THE AO WHO SHALL CALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A KEEPIN G IN MIND THE LAW DISCUSSED THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 25. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UN DER SECTIONS 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTI AL IN NATURE, AND THE SAME IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 26. THE GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 27. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.232/COCHIN/2015 WHERE THE ISSUE RELATES TO THE D ISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.230/COCHIN/201 5, AND THEREFORE, OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE I N THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO EXCEPT THE AMOUNT WHICH ARE REFERRED IN THE ORDER O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF THE AO WHO SHALL ITA NO.230, 231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 16 CALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A KEEPIN G IN MIND THE LAW DISCUSSED THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 28. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UN DER SECTIONS 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTI AL IN NATURE, AND THE SAME IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 29. THE GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 30. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO .230/COCHIN/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND APPEAL N OS.231 AND 232/COCHIN/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER