vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These two appeals filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 04/04/2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 which in turn arise from the order dated 25.10.2018 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, by the DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 2 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Bimal Roy Soni in ITA No. 239/JP/2022 and this case is taken as lead case. In this appeal the assessee has raised sole ground:- “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing Officer to modify the Order passed u/s 143(3)/250/254 as requested by the Assessee in his application u/s 154 to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income of Rs. 1906087/- in view of the ITAT decision in assessee’s case in ITA No. 308/JP/2018 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT relying upon and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT, New Delhi [402 ITR 640] directed the AO to disallow the interest as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 3. In ITA No. 240/JP/2022, the assessee has taken sole ground in this appeal; ““1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in law and on facts in not directing the learned Assessing Officer to modify the Order passed u/s 143(3)/250/254 as requested by the Assessee in his application u/s 154 to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income of Rs. 2769789/- in view of the ITAT decision in assessee’s case in ITA No. 309/JP/2018 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT relying upon and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT, New Delhi [402 ITR 640] directed the AO to disallow the interest as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the AR of the assessee filed an application stating that the effect to the ITAT ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 3 order given requires modification as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. The AR of the assessee mentioned contents of the order of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and as the ld. AO has not considered this aspect while passing the order dated 12.09.2018 consequent to the order of the ITAT passed u/s. 254 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act he has moved an application which was rejected. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT/NFAC. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for both the year is similar and is reiterated here in below: “5.4 I have perused the order of the ITAT. The ITAT has not given any direction in its order that the quantum of disallowance u/s 14A be restricted to the quantum of exempted income. Since the present appeal is restricted to the issue of giving effect to the order of the ITAT, I am unable to issue directions to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempted income.” 6. As the ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not given any finding on the merits of the case the ld. AR of the assessee contended that the direction of the tribunal is not followed properly. Therefore, the contention of the assessee has been examined and as per record of this tribunal it has been observed that the appeal effect u/s 254 ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 4 r.w.s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was given on 12.09.2018 only as per direction made by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in the appellate order bearing ITA No. 308 & 275/JP/2018 dated 25.06.2018. 7. In ITA No. 239/JP/2022, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted in below; During course of hearing held on 10.01.2023, your honours had asked to provide data / information to determine (A) the nexus of investment in shares of limited companies and partnership firms with the interest free funds AND to verify the quantum of interest to be considered for disallowance as well as to verify the rate of interest applied by the AO. In this reference, we humbly submit as under for your honours kind perusal and sympathetic consideration:- 1. That the appellant (a qualified doctor), is filing his Income Tax Returns since FY 1983-84. Earlier he was serving at an overseas hospital for three years his status was of non-resident. Prior to FY 1985-86, he was declaring Salary income from Govt. of Rajasthan and Interest income in his ITR. In FY 1985-86, the appellant established his hospital (presently known as Soni Hospital, Jaipur) in the capacity of proprietor giving up his assignment with the State Government. In the FY 1995-96, the said hospital was sold to Soni Medicare Ltd for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/= and the said sale consideration was invested in shares of Soni Medicare Ltd. Prior to FY 1995-96, investment in shares of Soni Medicare Ltd. aggregating Rs.2,818,020/= was out of own accumulated savings out of income earned since FY 1979-80 to 1994-95. 2. The nexus of investment in shares out of Interest Free Funds (consisting of own income and interest free borrowings) after FY 1995-96 to FY 2012-13 is as under: FINANCIAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT REMARKS ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 5 YEAR INCREASE IN INVESTMENT IN SHARES OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS UPTO 1995-96 1,28,18,020.00 1,28,18,020.00 As narrated above in para 1 above 1996-97 5,95,500.00 5,95,500.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 7,08,994/= 1998-99 1,05,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 1999-2000 17,00,913.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2000-01 1,25,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2001-02 1,14,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2002-03 60,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2003-04 17,00,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2004-05 36,14,250.00 33,09,615.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 21,94,552/= and increase in Interest free borrowings over last year 2005-06 6,21,670.00 6,21,670.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 74,05,969/= 2006-07 1,11,10,000.00 65,55,790.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 83,83,377/= 2007-08 9,50,000.00 9,50,000.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,14,66,319/= 2009-10 64,84,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2010-11 1,99,00,000.00 11,98,753.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,20,20,187/= 2011-12 33,00,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2012-13 41,14,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds TOTAL 6,73,12,353.00 2,60,49,348.00 (Note- In the aforesaid table, the amount of investment in shares shown in column 2 has been taken from PB-1, 2 and 3; and the amount of yearly income earned shown in the fourth column has been taken from PB 4). 3. Perusal of above table establishes that out of total investment of Rs.6,73,12,353.00, Rs.2,60,49,348.00 represents investment out of interest free funds (mostly accumulated earnings saved) and only Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 6 Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) was invested out of interest bearing borrowed funds which may be considered for disallowance of interest u/s 14A. In this reference, it is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has considered total amount of Rs.6,73,12,353/= invested in shares presuming it to be out of interest bearing borrowings while computing disallowance under section 14A which is patently wrong. Your honours are therefore humbly requested to please consider this vital fact while adjudicating the appeal. 4. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases- CIT v. UTI BANK LTD [2022] 289 Taxman 238 (SC) South Indian Bank Ltd. CIT [2021] 283 Taxman 128 (SC) Principal CIT v. Gujrat Fluorochemicals Ltd. [2022] 284 Taxman 451 (SC) It was held and approved by the hon’ble Supreme Court that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded its investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted under section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your honours are humbly requested to please consider Rs.53,18,801/= for disallowance as against Rs.1,07,69,976/= considered for disallowance by the learned Assessing Officer. 6. In respect of nexus of investment in Capital of Partnership Firms, it is humbly submitted that the assessee is deriving taxable income by way of Interest on Capital and Salary in the capacity of Partner besides Share in Profits. Thus when the amount of aggregate taxable income Rs.31,83,274/= (Please refer to PB-4: Salary Rs. 30,27,821/= + Interest on capital Rs.1,55,453/=) earned from partnership firms exceeds the notional amount of interest @ 12.89% on average capital of Rs. 2737508/= comes to Rs.352865/=. Thus inference that assessee has tax free income from partnership firms does not have any legal sanctity. In view of this reasoning, there should not be any disallowance of interest. The disallowance of Rs.4,33,398/= made by the learned Assessing Officer, in our considered opinion deserves not to be considered for disallowance and we request your ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 7 honours to please delete the amount of Rs.4,33,398/=, considered by the learned A.O. 7. The above facts very clearly establishes the nexus between the interest free funds with investment in shares and the capital invested in partnership firms as well as interest bearing borrowed funds applied for making investment ins shares of limited companies and therefore Provision of Rule 8D are not required to be applied. 8. We further request your honours to please restrict the total disallowance of interest u/s 14A to the extent of tax free income earned during the year aggregating Rs.19,06,087/= in view of decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd and subsequent decisions of various High Courts as well as Tribunals tendered after referring to / considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra) , few of them are as under for ready reference – Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Dy CIT [2021] 125 Taxmann.com / 83 ITR 498 (JP.-Trib), the jurisdictional ITAT K. Raheja (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 142 Taxman.com (Mum.-Trib.) Smt. Yamini Khandelwal v. ACIT [2022] 142 Taxman.com (Kol.-Trib) Principal CIT v. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. [2022] 138 Taxman.com 199 (Cal.) Jaswantlal J. Shah v. ACIT [2021] 128 Taxmann.com 378 (Mum.Trib.) The hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. Marg Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Judgment dt. 30.09.2020 in TCA Nos.41 to 43 / 2017) has also held that “The legal position, as interpreted above by various judgments and again reiterated by us in this judgment, remains that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income cannot exceed exempted income itself and neither the Assessee nor the Revenue are entitled to take a deviated view of the matter”. 8. In ITA No. 240/JP/2022, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted in below; ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 8 “During course of hearing held on 10.01.2023, your honours had asked to provide data / information to determine the nexus of investment in shares of limited companies AND to verify the quantum of interest to be considered for disallowance as well as to verify the rate of interest applied by the AO. In this reference, we humbly submit as under for your honours kind perusal and sympathetic consideration:- 1. That the appellant (a qualified doctor), is filing his Income Tax Returns since FY 1983-84. Earlier he was serving at an overseas hospital for three years, and his status was of non-resident. Prior to FY 1985-86, he was declaring Salary income from Govt. of Rajasthan and Interest income in his ITR. In FY 1985-86, the appellant established his hospital (presently known as Soni Hospital, Jaipur) in the capacity of proprietor giving up his assignment with the State Government. In the FY 1995-96, the said hospital was sold to Soni Medicare Ltd for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/= and the said sale consideration was invested in shares of Soni Medicare Ltd. Prior to FY 1995-96, investment in shares of Soni Medicare Ltd. aggregating Rs.28,18,020/= was out of own accumulated savings out of income earned since FY 1979-80 to 1994-95. 9. The nexus of investment in shares out of Interest Free Funds (consisting of own income and interest free borrowings) after FY 1995-96 to FY 2013-14 is as under: FINANCIAL YEAR AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN INVESTMENT IN SHARES INVESTMENT OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS REMARKS UPTO 1995-96 1,28,18,020.00 1,28,18,020.00 As narrated above 1996-97 5,95,500.00 5,95,500.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 7,08,994/= 1998-99 1,05,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 1999-2000 17,00,913.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2000-01 1,25,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2001-02 1,14,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2002-03 60,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2003-04 17,00,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 9 2004-05 36,14,250.00 33,09,615.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 21,94,552/= and Interest free borrowings 2005-06 6,21,670.00 6,21,670.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 74,05,969/= 2006-07 1,11,10,000.00 65,55,790.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 83,83,377/= 2007-08 9,50,000.00 9,50,000.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,14,66,319/= 2009-10 64,84,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2010-11 1,99,00,000.00 11,98,753.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,20,20,187/= 2011-12 33,00,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2012-13 41,14,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2013-14 3,24,700.00 3,24,700.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,09,84,620/= TOTAL 6,76,37,053.00 2,63,74,048.00 (Note- In the aforesaid table, the amount of investment in shares shown in column 2 has been taken from PB-1, 2 and 3; and the amount of yearly income earned shown in the fourth column has been taken from PB 4). 10. Perusal of above table establishes that out of total investment of Rs.6,76,37,053.00, Rs.2,63,74,048.00 represents investment out of interest free funds (mostly accumulated earnings saved) and only Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67637053/= minus Rs.26374048/=) was invested out of interest bearing borrowed funds which may be considered for disallowance of interest u/s 14A. In this reference, it is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has considered total amount of Rs.6,76,37,053/= invested in shares presuming it to be out of interest bearing borrowings while computing disallowance under section 14A which is patently wrong. Your honours are therefore humbly requested to please consider this vital fact while adjudicating the appeal. 4. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases- CIT v. UTI BANK LTD [2022] 289 Taxman 238 (SC) South Indian Bank Ltd. CIT [2021] 283 Taxman 128 (SC) ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 10 Principal CIT v. Gujrat Fluorochemicals Ltd. [2022] 284 Taxman 451 (SC) It was held and approved by the hon’ble Supreme Court that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded its investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted under section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 16.08% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.66,35,091/=. Thus your honours are humbly requested to please consider Rs.66,35,091/= for disallowance as against Rs.1,08,21,928/= considered for disallowance by the learned Assessing Officer. 6. The above facts very clearly establishes the nexus between the interest free funds with investment in shares and the capital invested in partnership firms as well as interest bearing borrowed funds applied for making investment ins shares of limited companies and therefore Provision of Rule 8D are not required to be applied. 7. We further request your honours to please restrict the total disallowance of interest u/s 14A to the extent of tax free income earned during the year aggregating Rs.2769789/= in view of decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd and subsequent decisions of various High Courts as well as Tribunals, few of them are as under – Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Dy CIT [2021] 125 Taxmann.com / 83 ITR 498 (JP.-Trib), the jurisdictional ITAT K. Raheja (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 142 Taxman.com (Mum.-Trib.) Smt. Yamini Khandelwal v. ACIT [2022] 142 Taxman.com (Kol.-Trib) Principal CIT v. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. [2022] 138 Taxman.com 199 (Cal.) Jaswantlal J. Shah v. ACIT [2021] 128 Taxmann.com 378 (Mum.Trib.) ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 11 The hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. Marg Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Judgment dt. 30.09.2020 in TCA Nos.41 to 43 / 2017) has also held that “The legal position, as interpreted above by various judgments and again reiterated by us in this judgment, remains that the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income cannot exceed exempted income itself and neither the Assessee nor the Revenue are entitled to take a deviated view of the matter”. 9. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and finding of the tribunal so far as merits of the case. Since, the assessee submitted various contentions on the fact the submission of the assessee forwarded to the AO for his comments/reports. The report of the ld. AO dated 06.02.2023 is reiterated here in below: “Kindly refer to the subject mentioned above. 2. In this regard para wise comments on paper book submitted by the assessee is as follows: Page 1-2: The assessee has submitted statement showing details of year wise investment in shares of Limited Companies. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1992-93 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. Page 3: The assessee has submitted statement showing source of incremental investment in shares. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1994-95 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. However it may be noted that the assessee himself has accepted that Interest bearing borrowed funds of Rs 4,12,63,005/- was utilized by the assessee for investment in shares from which exempt income was earned by the assessee. Thus disallowance u/s 14A is warranted in case of the assessee. Page 4: The assessee has submitted Statement showing break up of year wise income earned by the assessee. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1994-95 till FY 2013-14. This ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 12 office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessed considering the timeline of submitted detail. Page 5-6: The assessee has submitted Statement showing break up of year wise income from Partnership Firms and balance of capital invested. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 2004-05 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. Page 7: The assessee has submitted statement showing calculation of average rate of Interest. It is seen that calculation submitted by the assessee is as per audit report. AY 2014-15 Page 1-2: The assessee has submitted statement showing details of year wise investment in shares of Limited Companies. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1992-93 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. Page 3: The assessee has submitted statement showing source of incremental investment in shares. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1994-95 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. However it may be noted that the assessee himself has accepted that Interest bearing borrowed funds of Rs 4,12,63,005/- was utilized by the assessee for investment in shares from which exempt income was earned by the assessee. Thus disallowance u/s 14A is warranted in case of the assessee. Page 4: The assessee has submitted Statement showing break up of year wise income earned by the assessee. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1994-95 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. Page 5-6: The assessee has submitted Statement showing break up of year wise income from Partnership Firms and balance of capital invested. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 2004-05 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment on the accuracy of details submitted by the assessee considering the timeline of submitted detail. Page 7: The assessee has submitted statement showing calculation of average rate of Interest. It is seen that calculation submitted by the assessee is as per audit report. ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 13 3. It may further be noted that the Assessing officer herself has quoted various judgments and case laws in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in case of the assessee. Your goodself may refer to those case laws to counter the assessee’s submission.” So far as the deduction in respect of the figures of the income reported by the ld. AR of the assessee, ld. SR. DR fairly accepted that if that may be the fact that the income offered by the assessee is required to be reduced from the amount calculated for interest disallowance the same is required to be verified by the ld.AO as contented by him in this report. 10. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the figures are derived from the regular return of income filed by the assessee and he has no objection to get it verified before the ld. AO if he is given a chance. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. As it is evident from the facts before us that the contention of the assessee that the interest to be disallowable only to the extent of the exempt income is not decided by the ITAT and this co-ordinate bench cannot travel beyond the direction of the ITAT in the first round of litigation. But considering the alternate ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 14 plea of the assessee while computing the amount the ld. AO has made a mistake and for that he seeks directions. The apple discord is that in the 1 st round litigation, the ITAT has given the direction to compute the disallowance based on the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in ITA Nos. 308, 275, 309 & 276/JP/2018 dated 25/06/2018 the same is reads as under:- “7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the relevant material available on the record. As far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, the assessee has not disputed the fact that the borrowed fund was used by the assessee for investment in shares and capital infusion in the partnership firm. The income of dividend and profit of partnership firm are not included in the total income of the assessee and therefore direct expenditure incurred for making such investment cannot be allowed against the taxable income. As regards the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the earlier assessment years, we note that the Tribunal has decided the issue solely on the ground that the investment was made by the assessee for holding and controlling stakes in the companies and partnership firms and therefore, the provisions of Section 14A cannot be invoked in disallowance of expenditure. The decision of this Tribunal, though, was challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble High Court but since it was a question of fact and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that no substantial question of law arises. The order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 dated 08/3/2017 dealt with this issue in para 3.2 to 3.5 as under: “3.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is contended that the investment made in the sister concerns was to have controlling interest and in respect of the investment made in partnership firms, it is contended that income from partnership firms in the form of remuneration is duly offered for tax. The income in the form of share in profits of the firm is also subject to tax which was borne by the partners. It is submitted that share in profits of firm apparently seems to be exempt income, but eventually the same comes in the hands of the partners after suffering tax in their profit sharing ratio. Thus the tax is also borne by the respective partner. We find that the Coordinate Bench ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 15 in ITA Nos. 105 & 687/JP/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 09-10 has decided the issue in para 4.3. of its order by holding as under :- “4.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that it has been held by the coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case pertaining to A.Y. 2002-03 that provisions of section 14A are not applicable. Since the facts are identical in the year under appeal also, the contention of the assessee throughout has been that the investment wherefrom it has earned exempt income were made for the purpose of maintaining the controlling interest. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal, provisions of section 14A would not be applicable. The coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in the assessment year 2002-03 had deleted the addition on the basis that provisions of section 14A would not be applicable in the case of the assessee as the investment has been made solely for the purpose of having the controlling interest. There is no change into the facts in this year as well. The revenue has not brought to our notice any contrary binding precedent. Moreover, the assessee has dividend income to the tune of Rs. 756/- and the disallowance towards expenditure is made at Rs. 44,89,436/-. In view of above, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld. The facts are identical in this year as well. Therefore, taking a consistent view, we direct the AO to delete the addition. Ground raised in this appeal is allowed. 4. Now we take up revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 554/JP/2016. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 47,07,125/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 80,26,665/- made by the AO under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules.” 5. The representatives of the respective party have adopted the same argument as made in ITA No. 416/JP/2016. The only effective ground in revenue’s appeal is against restricting the disallowance made under rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Since this issue is decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 416/JP/2016, we do not see any merit in the contention of the ld. D/R, the same is dismissed.” ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 16 Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal has held that the investment was made for the purpose of maintaining and controlling interest in these concerns and therefore, the exempt income earned on such investment would not attract the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi (supra) has specifically considered this point in para 31 to 41 of the decision, which is reproduced as under: 31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument of counsel for the parties on both sides, in the light of various judgments which have been cited before us, some of which have already been taken note of above. 32. In the first instance, it needs to be recognised that as per section 14A(1) of the Act, deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act". Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that has to be disallowed. If an expenditure incurred has no causal connection with the exempted income, then such an expenditure would obviously be treated as not related to the income that is exempted from tax, and such expenditure would be allowed as business expenditure. To put it differently, such expenditure would then be considered as incurred in respect of other income which is to be treated as part of the total income. 33. There is no quarrel in assigning this meaning to section 14A of the Act. In fact, all the High Courts, whether it is the Delhi High Court on the one hand or the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the other hand, have agreed in providing this interpretation to section 14A of the Act. The entire dispute is as to what interpretation is to be given to the words 'in relation to' in the given scenario, viz. where the dividend income on the shares is earned, though the dominant purpose for subscribing in those shares of the investee company was not to earn dividend. We have two scenarios in these sets of appeals. In one group of cases the main purpose for investing in shares was to gain control over the investee company. Other cases are those where the shares of investee company were held by the assessees as stock-in-trade (i.e. as a business activity) and not as investment to earn dividends. In this context, it is to be examined as to whether the expenditure was incurred, in respective scenarios, in relation to the dividend income or not. 34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 17 interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment. We are of the opinion that the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant. No doubt, the assessee like Maxopp Investment Limited may have made the investment in order to gain control of the investee company. However, that does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining the issue at hand. Fact remains that such dividend income is non-taxable. In this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word 'in relation to the income' that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is engrained in Section 14A of the Act. This is so held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd., relevant passage whereof is already reproduced above, for the sake of continuity of discussion, we would like to quote the following few lines therefrom. "The next phrase is, "in relation to income which does not form part of total income under the Act". It means that if an income does not form part of total income, then the related expenditure is outside the ambit of the applicability of section 14A.. ** ** ** The theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and nontaxable has, in principle, been now widened under section 14A." 35. The Delhi High Court, therefore, correctly observed that prior to introduction of Section 14A of the Act, the law was that when an assessee had a composite and indivisible business which had elements of both taxable and non-taxable income, the entire expenditure in respect of said business was deductible and, in such a case, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure relating to the non-taxable income did not apply. The principle of apportionment was made available only where the business was divisible. It is to find a cure to the aforesaid problem that the Legislature has not only inserted Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001. We, thus, agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court, and are not inclined to accept the opinion of Punjab & Haryana High Court which ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 18 went by dominant purpose theory. The aforesaid reasoning would be applicable in cases where shares are held as investment in the investee company, may be for the purpose of having controlling interest therein. On that reasoning, appeals of Maxopp Investment Limited as well as similar cases where shares were purchased by the assessees to have controlling interest in the investee companies have to fail and are, therefore, dismissed. 36. There is yet another aspect which still needs to be looked into. What happens when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade' and not as 'investment', particularly, by the banks? On this specific aspect, CBDT has issued circular No. 18/2015 dated November 02, 2015. 37. This Circular has already been reproduced in Para 19 above. This Circular takes note of the judgment of this Court in Nawanshahar case wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern are part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arises from such investments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the Circular contains the decision of the Board that no appeal would be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and if the appeals are already filed, they should be withdrawn. A reading of this circular would make it clear that the issue was as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources' or it is to fall under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. The Board, going by the decision of this Court in Nawanshahar case, clarified that it has to be treated as income falling under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. The Board also went to the extent of saying that this would not be limited only to co- operative societies/Banks claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn profit, then the same would be treated as trading profit and if the object is to derive income by way of dividend then the profit would be said to have accrued from investment. To this extent, the High Court may be correct. At the same time, we do not agree with the test of dominant intention applied by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which we have already discarded. In that event, the question is as to on what basis those cases are to be decided where the shares of other ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 19 companies are purchased by the assessees as 'stock-in-trade' and not as 'investment'. We proceed to discuss this aspect hereinafter. 39. In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as 'income' under the head 'profits and gains from business and profession'. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. case. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned. 40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT(A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT(A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion by affirming the view of the ITAT, though we are not subscribing to the theory of dominant intention applied by the High Court. It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', it becomes a business activity of the assessee to deal in those shares as a business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits. The situation here is, therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. where the assessee would continue to hold those shares as it wants to retain control over the investee company. In that case, whenever dividend is declared by the investee company that would necessarily be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone. Therefore, even at the time of investing into those shares, the assessee knows that it may generate dividend income as well and as and when such dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 20 stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove. 41. Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the AO was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the AO. Therefore, dominant purpose for investment in shares was held not relevant for the purpose of Section 14A of the Act when the rule of apportionment of expenditure is applicable. Even otherwise irrespective of having held that the purpose of investment is not relevant for disallowance U/s 14A of the Act and apportionment of the expenditure, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of interest is not falling in the category of indirect expenditure to be apportioned but it is a direct expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of investment which has yielded tax free income. Therefore, the direct expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of interest is even otherwise not allowable against the taxable income. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, the decisions of this Tribunal for the earlier assessment years will not help the case of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has been consistently making the disallowance U/s 14A on account of interest expenditure as well as indirect administrative expenditure, therefore, the assessee is also not having the defence that the Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance in the earlier years. Hence, we hold that to the extent of interest expenditure which has a direct nexus with the investment made in the shares and partnership firms yielded exempt income shall be disallowed U/s 14A of the Act. As regards the disallowance on account of indirect administrative expenditure, since the assessee is individual and the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material or fact to show that the assessee has incurred any expenditure on account of administration of these investments and earning dividend income then the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. Accordingly, we modify the orders of the authorities below on this issue and sustained the disallowance on account of interest expenditure U/s 14A of the Act. ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 21 8. In the ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14, the issue involved is disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of claim of payment of house tax against the income from house property. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has claimed the payment of house tax of property of Rs. 14,552/-, however, the assessee has not brought any evidence for actual payment of house tax. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not produced any evidence of payment of house tax. However, the assessee took a plea that the house tax amount of Rs. 14,552/- was deducted by the tenant from the rent payable to the assessee and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction U/s 23 of the Act. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated its contention that since this house tax was paid by the tenant and the same was deducted from rent, therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction U/s 23(1) of the Act. 9. We have heard the ld. AR of the assessee as well as the ld DR and also considered the relevant material available on the record. We note that though the assessee has claimed the deduction of house tax paid. However, no documentary supporting evidence was filed by the assessee of actual payment of house tax. Proviso to Section 23(1) of the Act provides such deduction towards the liability to pay the taxes but on actual payment basis irrespective of the liability pertains to the previous year. For ready reference, we quote proviso to Section 23(1) of the Act as under: “23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable; or (c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable : Provided that the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property shall be deducted (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such taxes was incurred by the owner according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes are actually paid by him.” Thus, the proviso stipulates the deduction in respect of liability of payment of tax but only on actual payment. Such deduction is allowable against the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes are ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 22 actually paid. The assessee, though claimed the house tax of Rs. 14,552/-, however, in absence of any proof of actual payment, such deduction cannot be allowed. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authorities below qua this issue. 10. Since the grounds, facts and submissions of the cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue in the case for A.Y. 2014-15 are identical to the facts of A.Y. 2013-14, therefore, the findings of A.Y. 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis in this also. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed and both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed.” 12. We have also seen from the paper book filed by the ld. AR of the assessee that after receipt of the above direction of the ITAT the ld. AO passed an order dated 12.09.2018 wherein he computed the disallowance. For the sake of brevity the same is reiterated here in below : Amount in Rs. Sr No. Particulars Amount disallowed for A. Y. 2013-14 2014-15 1 Investment in shares 6,73,12,353 6,76,37,053 2 Average rate 16 % 16 % 3 Expenditure disallowed u/s. 14A(1)*(2)=(A) 1,07,69,976 1,08,21,928 4 Investment in partnership firm 4.1 Opening value of investment 19,02,580 -- 4.2 Closing value of investment 35,14,890 -- 4.3 Average Value of investment 27,08,735 -- 4.4 Average rate 16 % -- 4.5 Expenditure disallowed u/s. 14A for investment in firm(4.3*4.4)(B) 4,33,398 -- Total Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D(A)+(B) 1,12,03,374 1,08,21,928 ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 23 13. The ld. AR of the assessee has not disputed the amount of investment of 6,73,12,353/- and Rs. 6,76,37,053/- computed by the ld. AO for both the years, but he contended that out of the amount arrived by the ld. AO he has not considered the amount of income which is available with him for making this investment is required to be reduced while computing the disallowable amount of interest in the case of the assessee. To support this contention the ld. AR of the assessee submitted year wise income and the amount of investment on which interest is disallowable, the same is reproduced here in below: FINANCIAL YEAR AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN INVESTMENT IN SHARES INVESTMENT OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS REMARKS UPTO 1994-95 ,28,18,020.00 28,18,020.00 Investment made in F. Y. 85-86 1995-96 1,00,00,000.00 1,00,00,000.00 Assessee sold his hospital for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and the said consideration was invested in shares of the company. 1996-97 5,95,500.00 5,95,500.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 7,08,994/= 1998-99 1,05,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 1999-2000 17,00,913.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2000-01 1,25,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2001-02 1,14,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2002-03 60,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2003-04 17,00,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 24 2004-05 36,14,250.00 33,09,615.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 21,94,552/= and Interest free borrowings 2005-06 6,21,670.00 6,21,670.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 74,05,969/= 2006-07 1,11,10,000.00 65,55,790.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 83,83,377/= 2007-08 9,50,000.00 9,50,000.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,14,66,319/= 2009-10 64,84,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2010-11 1,99,00,000.00 11,98,753.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,20,20,187/= 2011-12 33,00,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2012-13 41,14,000.00 - Interest bearing borrowed funds 2013-14 3,24,700.00 3,24,700.00 Out of income generated for the year aggregating Rs. 1,09,84,620/= TOTAL 6,76,37,053.00 2,63,74,048.00 For A.Y.2014-15 Rs. 6,76,37,053 and for A.Y.2013-14 Rs. 6,76,37,053 less Rs. 3,24,700/- equals to Rs. 6,73,12,353/-. Based on the above chart he has submitted that the amount available out of income and non-interest-bearing fund is required to be deducted from the amount considered by the ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 2,63,74,048/- as the same cannot be considered as investments made out of the borrowed fund. Therefore, he contended that the disallowance is required to be modified to that extent so to considered the direction of the ITAT in true spirit. As regards the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee before us stating that ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 25 disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made more than what is the exempt of the income of the assessee but since this is the 2 nd round litigation of the litigation and this issue is not before us we cannot considered the grounds of the assessee in full but the amount considered for the disallowance is required to be reduced to the extent of the income and non-interest bearing fund as contended by the ld. AR of the assessee. Though, the ld.AR admitted at bar that these figures he has derived from the records of the assessee maintained by him and he has expressed his willing to get it verified with the ld. AO for the relied he sought. Therefore, in the light of these observations, we direct the ld. AO to compute check the figure of the investment made out of the income earned by the assessee and out of non-interest bearing fund available with the assessee and the ld. AO after verification reduce the figure of the investment and on balance he may compute the disallowance u/s. 14A. 14. As regards the disallowance of interest in the investments made in the partner-ship firm for which the disallowance of Rs. 4 lacs is made by the AO and the ld. AR of the assessee explained with a chart copy of is extracted here in below ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 26 The ld. AO has computed the average balance at Rs. 27,08,735/- whereas the income of the assessee in this year more then the amount computed by the ld. AO and therefore if it so then the disallowance of Rs. 4,33,398/- made by the ld. AO is required to be deleted. 15. Per contra, ld. DR did not object the factual aspect argued by the ld. AR of the assessee and agreed to the arguments made by the ld. AR of the assessee considering this factual aspect of the matter but this also require verification on the part of the AO. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find force in the arguments of the ld. AR of ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 27 the assessee considering the factual aspect argued before us we are of the considered view that when the income for the year under consideration is higher than the amount invested in the Partnership on which interest is not disallowable u/s. 14A to that extent ad computed by the ld. AO for A. Y. 2013-14. The ld.AO is directed to check the figure as advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee and grant necessary relief in the matter. 17. As the contention of the assessee that interest can disallowed to the extent of the exempt income is not the disputed before us and same has already been decided by the co-ordinate bench and therefore, we have refrain to decide that contention of the assessee but at the same time based on the arguments advanced before us the contention of the ld.AR of the assessee accepted to the extent that amount considered for disallowance of interest is required to be reduced to the extent of income for each year available with the assessee as contended by the assessee for which we direct the ld.AO to verify the figures reported by the ld. AO and will grant the relief as directed here in above. Based on these observations the appeal of the assessee for A. Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed. ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 28 In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/03/2023 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judcial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28/03/2023 *Ganesh Kr. vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Bimal Roy Soni, JLN Marg, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar