M/s TRB Exports Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. Addl. CIT, Ludhiana

ITA 279/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5272 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.522/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S T.R.B EXPORTS(P) LTD., VS. THE J.C.I.T., TRB HOUSE, G.T. ROAD, RANGE-V, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAACT8590M ITA NO.279/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA NO.569/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/S T.R.B EXPORTS(P) LTD., VS. THE ADDL.C.I.T., TRB HOUSE, G.T. ROAD, RANGE-V, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAACT8590M & ITA NO.570/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S T.R.B EXPORTS(P) LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T., TRB HOUSE, G.T. ROAD, RANGE-V, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAACT8590M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI .SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 03.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.02.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE SAM E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S CIT(APPEALS)) DATED 27.2.2013, 31.1.2014, 16.2.20 16 AND 2 16.2.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 200 9-10, 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES WERE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APP EALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO US THAT ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATED TO ONLY TWO ISSUES: A) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) B) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS COMMON TO ALL THE ABOV E CASES ARE THAT THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 3 6(1)(III) OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIL ED TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR THE ADVANCE SO MADE. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GA INS BOTH OF WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. HE ALSO NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST TO BANKS DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT DISAL LOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. HOWEVE R NO SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS MADE AS T HE WHOLE INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 36(1(III) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE WENT UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 3 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AND THAT COMPUTED U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HIS SOLE ARGUME NT VIS--VIS BOTH THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EITHER U/S 36( 1)(III) OR U/S 14A WAS WARRANTED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. V S CIT 381 ITR 107(P&H) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION VIS- -VIS DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 36(1)(III) AND FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD. IN ITA. NO.186 OF 2013 DT.06 -09-16 FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE U/S 14A OF TH E ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED BEFORE U S A CHART QUANTIFYING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES MADE IN EA CH YEAR AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS ABOVE CONTENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 36(1)(III) AND CHA RT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT EARNING EXEMPT INC OME AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ITA NO.522/CHD/2013 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. GROUND 1.- ADDITION OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A AMO UNTING TO RS.1,92,792 4 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1 . TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS ON WHICH DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED 1,21,79,546 2. TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN HAS BEEN EARNED 21,00,000 3. RESERVES AND SURPLUS (INTEREST FREE) (REFER PAGE-5 8 OF PAPERBOOK-L) 11,01,45,399 4. SHARE CAPITAL (INTEREST FREE) 65,02,000 2. GROUND 2.-ADDITION OF INTEREST U/S 36(1 )(III) AMOUNTING TO RS.8,27,067 (RESTRICTED THE EXTENT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE) SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. ADVANCE MADE TO CEE ENN PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PAPERBOOK III 40,00,000 2. ADVANCE MADE TO ANAND ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS P. PAPE RBOOK III 3,65,00,000 3. RESERVES AND SURPLUS 11,01,45,399 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.279/CHD/2014 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1 )(III)-RS. 1 7.43,272 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. ADVANCE MADE TO CEE ENN PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS (PROPERTIES BOUGHT IN AY 2012-13) REFER 40,00,000 2. ADVANCE MADE TO ANAND ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. (PROPERTIES BOUGHT IN AY 2012-13) REFER PAPERBOOK I II 3,65,00,000 3. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE ON THE BUILDING UNDE R CONSTRUCTION (REFER PG 79 OF THE PAPERBOOK I) 29,72,907 4. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND ( REFER PG 79 OF THE PAPERBOOK I) 56,58,000 TOTAL AMOUNT LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III ) 4,91,30,907 5. RESERVES AND SURPLUS AS ON 31.03.2009 (AY 2009-10) (REFER PAGE-76 OF PAPERBOOK I) 11,15,01,689 6. SHARE CAPITAL (REFER PAGE-76) (INTEREST FREE) 65,0 2,000 2. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A-RS.99.795 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS ON WHICH DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE 1,61,38,442 2. RESERVES AND SURPLUS (INTEREST FREE) (REFER PAGE -76 OF PAPERBOOK-L) 11,15,01,689 3. SHARE CAPITAL (INTEREST FREE) 65,02,000 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ITA NO.569/CHD/2016 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1 )(III)-RS. 21,18,382 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. ADVANCE MADE TO GURCHARAN SINGH (PROPERTY BOUGHT O N 15.10.2011) REFER PAGE-86, 89-98 OF PB 12,00,000 2. ADVANCE MADE TO ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRA LTD. (P ROPERTY BOUGHT IN 31.08.2012) REFER PAGES-68-71, 72-84 OF T HE PAPERBOOK 20,08,125 3. ADVANCE MADE TO MOHINDER SINGH (PROPERTY BOUGHT IN AY 12,50,000 5 15.10.2011) REFER PAGES-87-88, 89-98 OF THE PAPERBO OK 4. ADVANCE MADE TO GURDEV SINGH (PROPERTY BOUGHT IN 02.01.2012) REFER PAGES-99-100, 101-116 OF THE PB 50,00,000 5. ADVANCE MADE TO BALJIT SINGH 6,00,000 6. ADVANCE MADE TO CEE ENN PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS (PROPERTIES BOUGHT IN AY 2012-13) 4,00,000 7. ADVANCE MADE TO ANAND ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. (PROPERTIES BOUGHT IN AY 2012-13) 3,65,00,000 8. ADVANCES MADE TO SILKY GOYAL 9,23,000 9. ADVANCES MADE TO SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATI ON LTD. (EARNEST MONEY FORFEITED BY THE PARTY AND NOW IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE CONSUMER FORUM) 7,74,029 TOTAL AMOUNT LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III ) 4,86,55,154 5. RESERVES AND SURPLUS AS ON 31.03.2009 (AY 2009-10) (REFER PAGE-6 OF THE PAPERBOOK) 11,66,20,200 6. SHARE CAPITAL (REFER PAGE-6) (INTEREST FREE) 65,02 ,000 2. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A-RS.25,593 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS ON WHICH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE 57,42,371 2. RESERVES AND SURPLUS (INTEREST FREE) (REFER PAGE-6 OF PAPERBOOK) 11,66,20,200 3. SHARE CAPITAL (INTEREST FREE) 65,02,000 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ITA NO.570/CHD/2016 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1 )(III)-RS. 3 7,21,526 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. ADVANCE MADE TO ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRA LTD. (PROPERTY BOUGHT IN 31.08.2012) REFER PAGES-64-67, 91-103 OF THE PAPERBOOK I 25,98,750 2. ADVANCE MADE TO ANAND ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. (PROPERTIES BOUGHT IN AY 2012-13) 3,65,00,000 3. ADVANCES MADE TO SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORA TION LTD. (EARNEST MONEY FORFEITED BY THE PARTY AND NOW IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE CONSUMER FORUM) 7,74,029 TOTAL AMOUNT LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) 3,98,72,779 4 RESERVES AND SURPLUS AS ON 31.03.2009 (AY 2009-10) (REFER PAGE-6 OF THE PAPERBOOK) 12,50,02,418 5. SHARE CAPITAL (REFER PAGE-6) (INTEREST FREE) 65,02,000 2. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A-RS.25,593 SL. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS ON WHICH DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE 44,94,741 2. RESERVES AND SURPLUS (INTEREST FREE) (REFER PAGE -6 OF PAPERBOOK) 12,50,02,418 3. SHARE CAPITAL (INTEREST FREE) 65,02,000 6 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPEN DITURE EITHER U/S 36(1)(III) OR U/S 14A OF THE ACT WAS WAR RANTED. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS CIT 381 ITR 107(P&H) HAS HELD THAT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF SUFFI CIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT TH E INTEREST FREE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE SA ME AND NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IS WA RRANTED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. THE SAID PROPOSITION HAS BEE N REITERATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KAPSONS ASSOCIATES (2016) 381 ITR 204 & GURUDAS GAR G VS CIT(A),BATHINDA REPORTED IN 2015(8) TMI 569. 10. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDE D BY THE CIT(A) ON THE ASPECT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY O F THE ADVANCES MADE AND THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT AND THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THEREIN HA S NOT BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. IN VIE W OF THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST NEE DS TO BE EXAMINED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THE AVAILABILITY OF I NTEREST FREE FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE AS LAID DOWN IN THE AF ORESAID 7 DECISION. SINCE THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BEFORE US N EED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RES TORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS- -VIS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, WE AGAIN FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSE L FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAX INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ON AVAILABILITY OF ENOUGH INTEREST FREE FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 14A IS WARRANTED. RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UND ER: 12.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, SET -ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF ? 4,52,94,905/- UNDER SECTION 14A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THE TRIBUNA L, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT ESTIMATED ? 20 LACS TOWARDS ADMINIS TRATIVE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. 13. THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ORDERS IMPUGNED BEFORE IT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE BAN K STATEMENTS AND THAT, THEREFORE, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE OUGHT TO BE DRAWN AGAINST IT. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AUTHORITIES INDICATED THAT THE PR ESUMPTION AS REGARDS THE UTILIZATION OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND BORROWED FUN DS IN A MIXED POOL OUGHT TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LISTED COMPANY AND WAS REQUIRED TO PUBLISH ITS ACCOUNTS AND SUBMIT THE SAME BEFORE VARIOUS STATUTORY AUTHORITIES SUCH AS SEBI, STOCK EXCHANGES AS WELL A S TO THE SHARE HOLDERS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. IN VIEW THEREOF THE TRIBUNA L DID NOT ACCEPT THE DEPARTMENTS CONTENTION THAT THE FUNDS FLOW STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN WERE PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDIT ACCOUNTS FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT AUTHENTIC. 14. THE TRIBUNAL WAS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO DRAW SUC H AN INFERENCE. IT IS A REASONABLE INFERENCE. THE TRIBUNAL ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE COR RECT QUESTION, NAMELY, TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE ADDITI ONAL INVESTMENTS WITH THE INTEREST FREE BORROWED FUNDS. THE FOLLOWING FINDING S OF FACT OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE: THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE RELEVANT TI ME INVESTED AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ? 152.05 CRORES OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF 28.18 CRORES WAS MADE IN 8 SHARES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES. THE DIVIDEND FROM THE FOREIGN COMPANIES WAS TAXABLE. THIS, THEREFORE, LEFT AN AMOUNT OF 123.87 CRORES WHICH YIELDED DIVIDENDS WHICH WERE EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSEE REALIZED 117.97 CRORES FROM THE SALE OF ITS INVESTMENTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS; ? 46 CRORES W AS GENERATED FROM THE ASSESSEES OPERATING ACTIVITIES; 6.87 CRORES WAS RECEIVED FRO M SALE OF FIXED ASSETS AND THERE WAS AN OPENING CASH BALANCE OF 8.90 CRORES. THE A GGREGATE OF SURPLUS FUNDS ON WHICH THERE WAS NO INTEREST BURDEN WAS ? 179.74 CRO RES. THIS AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS SUCH FUNDS WERE IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENT OF 123.87 CRORES. IN ADDITION THERETO THE ASSESSE E HAD GENERATED CASH FROM ITS FINANCING ACTIVITIES OF AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF 24 .24 CRORES. IT HAD PURCHASED FIXED ASSETS AGGREGATING ONLY TO ? 54.62 CRORES DURING TH E RELEVANT PERIOD. THE FINDINGS, THEREFORE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTERES T FREE FUNDS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT YIELDING TAX FREE RETURNS CANNOT BE FAUL TED. THE ABSENCE OF BANK BOOKS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT JUSTIFY AN ADVERSE IN FERENCE BEING DRAWN FOR WHICHEVER WAY THE MATTER IS VIEWED, THE ASSESSEE HA D SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE TO IT ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS PAYABLE. THIS BRINGS US TO THE LEGAL ISSUE OF A PRESUMPTION TO BE MADE WHEN THERE IS A POOL OF FUNDS WHICH INCL UDE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS. 15. MR. VOHRAS RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SU PREME COURT IN EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1997 INCOME TAX REPORTS 224 (SC) IS WELL FOUNDED. THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE HIGH COURT:- 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST O F ' 28,488/- ON MONEY BORROWED FOR PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX WAS NOT AN EXPEN DITURE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS CONTEMPLATED BY SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961?' IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OVER DRAFT ACCOUN T WITH THE BANK. IT CLAIMED A SUM OF ? 28,488/- AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER SEC TION 37(1) OF THE ACT WHICH REPRESENTED THE INTEREST PAID ON THE OVERDRAFT AMOU NT. THE OVERDRAFT WAS FOR PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX. THE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS T HE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS CO NTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THAT IT HAD DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE PROFITS I N THE OVER DRAFT ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT THUS DEPOSITED BEING MUCH MORE THAN THE TAX LIABILITY, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESUMED THAT THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFIT S OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVER DRAFT ACCOUNT FOR RUNNING OF THE BUSINE SS. THE SUPREME COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 3. MR. DIPAK BHATTACHARYYA, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARI NG FOR THE APPELLANT, ARGUED WITH VEHEMENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING DEPO SITED THE ENTIRE PROFITS IN THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT THU S DEPOSITED IN THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT BEING MUCH MORE COMPARED TO THE I NCOME TAX LIABILITY AND THE TAX PAID, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESUMED THAT IN ESSENCE AND TRUE CHARACTER THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS. CONSEQUENTLY THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON T HE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT RELATABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSE SSEE'S BUSINESS INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE LEARNED C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. V. CIT[(1982) 134 ITR 219 : (1981) 23 CTR 204 (CAL)] , RECKITT AND COLEMAN OF INDIA LTD.V. CIT[(1982) 135 ITR 698 : (1982) 26 CTR 24 (CAL)] , INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD. V. 071(1984) 147 ITR 392 : 1983 TAX LR 356 (CAL)L AND ALKALI & CHEMICAL CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.V. OF [(1986) 161 ITR 820 (CAL)L . THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO URGED THAT THESE DECISIONS HAVING BEEN ALLOWED TO BE OPERATIVE FOR MORE THAN 14 YEARS, THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS SHOULD BE MAD E APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE HIGH COURT COMM ITTED ERROR IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION.. 9 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AT THE B AR THOUGH WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT BUT IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL AS WELL AS THE QUESTION REFERRED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR BEING ANSW ERED BY THE HIGH COURT AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS W ELL AS IN THE HIGH COURT BY THE COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO HOLD THAT ANY SUCH CONTENTION, AS WAS ADVANCED B EFORE THIS COURT BY THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT BEEN ADVANCED EITHER BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL OR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE QUESTION WHETHER A PRESU MPTION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AS WAS DRAWN IN WOOLCOMBERS CASE [(1982) 134 ITR 219 : (1981) 23 CTR 204 (CAL)L BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND WAS FOLLOWED IN 3 OTHER CASES OF THE SAME HIGH COURT, WOULD ESSENTIALLY DEPEND UPON THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROFITS HAD BEEN PUMPED INTO THE OVERDRAFT A CCOUNT, WHETHER SUCH PROFITS WERE MORE THAN THE TAX AMOUNT PAID FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND ALL OTHER GERMANE FACTORS. BUT WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEVER ADVANCED THE CONTENTION EITHER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE AMPLITUDE OF THE QUESTION POSED BEFORE THE HIGH COU RT DOES NOT BRING WITHIN ITS SWEEP THE CONTENTION AS IS ADVANCED BY MR BHATTACHARYYA, LEARNED COUNSEL IN THIS COURT, IT WOULD NOT BE APPR OPRIATE FOR THIS COURT TO LOOK INTO THE ADDITIONAL PAPERS PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR ENTERTAINING THE CONTENTION AND ANSWERING THE SAME. IT IS TRUE T HAT THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS CASE [(1982) 134 ITR 219 : (1981) 23 CTR 204 (CAL)L CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHERE PROFITS WE RE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND PROFITS WERE DEPOSITE D INTO THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THEN IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS. BUT TO RAISE THE PRESU MPTION IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE THERE WERE SUFFICIENT MATERIALS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD URGED THE CONTENTION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE AFORESAID DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OFI?ECFCRTTF(1982) 135 ITR 698 : (1982) 26 CTR 24 (CAL)L WHERE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THE WOOLCOMBERS CASE [(1982) 134 ITR 219 : (1981) 23 CTR 204 (CAL)L HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. BUT IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE QUESTION POSED IN RECKITT CASE [(1982) 135 ITR 698 : (1982) 26 CTR 24 (CAL)L WAS DIRECTLY TO THE E FFECT AS TO WHERE THE ENTIRE TRADING RECEIPTS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT AND THE TAX WAS PAID OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT W HETHER THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT OF TAX OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. IN INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD. CASE [(1984) 147 ITR 392 : 1983 TAX LR 356 (CAL)L THE AFORESAID TWO DECISIONS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD BEEN FOLLOWED AND THE QUESTION THAT HAD B EEN POSED WAS TO THE EFFECT WHETHER THE INTEREST ON AN OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE AMOUNT DRAWN FOR DISCHARGING THE TAX LIABILITY COUL D BE AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGH COURT ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT IN THE AFORESAID CASE THE COURT DID NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE Q UESTION WHETHER THE INTEREST PAID ON MONEY BORROWED FOR PAYMENT OF TAX WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. TO THE SAME EFFECT IS THE DEC ISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ALKALI CHEMICAL CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. [(1986) 161 ITR 820 (CAL)L ..EMPHASIS SUPPLIED. 16. IT MAY BE SAID THAT THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THE F UNDS WERE ALL IN A COMMON POOL VIZ. IN THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT. IT WOULD, HOWEVER, M AKE NO DIFFERENCE EVEN IF THE FUNDS ARE IN DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. THE PRESUMPTION WO ULD STILL APPLY SO LONG AS THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. OUR VIEW IS SUPP ORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX V. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. 2009 (313) ITR (BOMBAY), WHERE IT WA S HELD:- IF THERE BE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AN AS SESSEE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS INVESTMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE H AD RAISED A LOAN IT 10 CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE FROM THE INTEREST- FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE. IN OUR OPINION, THE SUPREME COURT IN EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. V. CIT, [19971 224 ITR 627 HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER TH E DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD., [1982] 134 ITR 219 WHERE A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN. BEFOR E THE SUPREME COURT IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESUMED THA T IN ESSENCE AND TRUE CHARACTER THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO C LAIM THE DEDUCTIONS. THE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT THE ARGUMENT HAD CONSI DERABLE FORCE, BUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE CONTENTION HAD NOT BE EN ADVANCED EARLIER IT DID NOT REQUIRE TO BE ANSWERED. IT THEN NOTED THAT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD.'S CASE, [19821 134 ITR 219 THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD COM E TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROFITS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND THE PROFITS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE OVE R DRAFT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUCH A CASE IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED T HAT THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS. IT NOTED THAT TO RAISE THE PRESUMPTION, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD URGED THE CONTENTION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE PRINCIPLE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND OVER DRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE O UT OF THE INTEREST- FREE FUND GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. IN T HIS CASE THIS PRESUMPTION IS ESTABLISHED CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF FACT BOTH BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE INCOME -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THESE OBSERVATI ONS. THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE PRESUMPTION TO CASES WHERE THE FUNDS F ROM DIFFERENT SOURCES ARE MIXED IN A COMMON POOL. THE RATIONAL FOR THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT AN ASSESSEE WOULD UTILIZE ITS FUNDS PRUDENTLY ENSURING THAT IT DERIVES THE GR EATEST FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE. IF THAT BE THE RATIONAL WE SEE NO REASON FOR THE PRESUMPTIO N TO BE RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE THE DIFFERENT FUNDS ARE MIXED IN A COMMON POOL. IT IS, HOWEVER, ONLY A PRESUMPTION. 17. IN HDFC BANK LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX AND OTHERS, 2016 (383) ITR 529 (BOMBAY), THE PETITIONER FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH IT DECLARED AN INCOME OF 5. 81 CRORES FROM THE INVESTMENT AND SECURITIES WHICH WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX. IT TREAT ED THESE INVESTMENTS AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE PETITIONER HAD DURING THAT YEAR PAID INT EREST ON BORROWED FUNDS AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE. THE PETITIONER CLA IMED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES WAS MADE OUT OF ITS OWN TAX FREE FU NDS AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE PETITIONER CON TENDED THAT IT WAS POSSESSED OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF? 2153 CRORES AS A GAINST THE INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES OF ? 52.02 CRORES AND THAT THERE WAS A P RESUMPTION THAT THE INVESTMENT WHICH HAD BEEN MADE IN THE TAX-FREE SECURITIES HAD COME OUT OF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER. THE DIVISION B ENCH HELD:- 15. IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE CAS E OF HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THIS COURT TOOK A VIEW THAT THE PRESUMPTION WH ICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES COMING OUT OF ASS ESSEE'S OWN FUNDS IN CASE THE SAME ARE IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SECURITIES (NOTWITHSTANDING FACT THAT ASSESSEE CONCERNED MAY A LSO HAVE TAKEN SOME FUNDS ON INTEREST) APPLIES, WHEN APPLYING SECTION 1 4A OF ACT. THUS, DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) FO R THE FIRST TIME ON 23 RD JULY, 2014 HAS SETTLED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING THAT TH E TEST OF PRESUMPTION AS HELD BY THIS COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING SECTION 36( 1)(III) OF THE ACT WOULD AP PLY WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE AFOR ESAID DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE INASMUCH AS EVEN THOUGH THE Y HAVE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THAT ORDER ON T HE OTHER ISSUE THEREIN VIZ. BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST, NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PRE FERRED BY THE REVENUE 11 ON THE ISSUE OF INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN I N RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) IN ITS APPLICATION TO SECTION 14A OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE WHICH AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT IN GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (SUPRA). IT AROSE AND WAS SO DECIDED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY T HIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA). THUS, THERE IS NO CONFLICT AS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS PROCEE DED ON A FUNDAMENTALLY ERRONEOUS BASIS AS THE RATIO DECINDI OF THE ORDER IN GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEST OF PRESUMPTION CANVASSED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA). 16. AT THE HEARING MR. SURESH KUMAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE URGED THAT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE NO FAULT CAN B E FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) THAT TH E AMOUNTS INVESTED IN THE INTEREST FREE SECURITIES CAME OUT OF INTEREST F REE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS S UBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND TH E ABOVE SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O N 22 ND DECEMBER, 2010 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) P ASSED AN ORDER ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2011 DISMISSING THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL. ON BOTH THE DATES, WHEN THE ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A), THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE ORD ER OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) RENDERED ON 23 RD JULY, 2014. ONCE THE ISSUE IS SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HDFC BANK LTD. (SU PRA), THERE IS NOW NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH WITH EVIDENCE TH AT THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE TAX FREE SECURITIES HAVE C OME OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT. THIS IS BECAUSE ONCE THE A SSESSEE IS POSSESSED OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE INVESTME NT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES, IT IS PRESUMED THAT IT HAS BEEN PAID FO R OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN TH E ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE AT THE HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. .EMPHASIS SUPPLIED WE RESPECTFULLY AGREE WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS. WHIL E IT IS ONLY A PRESUMPTION, IT IS ONE WHICH IS IN THE ASSESSEES FAVOUR. THE DEPARTME NT COULD HAVE REBUTTED THIS PRESUMPTION BY CALLING FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE BAN K ITSELF. IT CHOSE NOT DO SO AT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT WAS NOT IN POSSE SSION OF THE RECORDS. THERE WAS NO APPLICATION EITHER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OR BEFORE US FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. 18. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. HDFC BANK LTD. 2014 (366) ITR 505. 19. A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN BRIGHT ENTERP RISES PVT. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2016 (381) ITR 107, TO WHICH ONE OF US ( S.J.VAZIFDAR, C.J.) WAS A PARTY, FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT IN CIT V. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. 2009 (313) ITR (BOMBAY) (SUPRA). IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 23. AS WE NOTED EARLIER, THE FUNDS/RESERVES OF THE APPELLANT WERE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE BY IT OF RS. 10.29 CRORES TO ITS SISTER COMPANY. WE ARE ENTIRELY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXV. RELIANCE UTILITIES & P OWER LTD., (2009) 313 ITR 340, PARA-10, THAT IF THERE ARE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAI LABLE A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENT WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENT. 20. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, QUESTION NO.(I) IS ANSWER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. 12 11. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AND CONSIDERING THE FACT TH AT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE NEED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED,WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS DISALLOWAN CE OF INTEREST U/S 14A ALSO STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH