Shri Harish V. Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Addl. CIT, Range-2, Baroda

ITA 2962/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8251 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD L LL LK KK KOZJH OZJH OZJH OZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2962/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI HARISH V. PATEL, C/O. MUKESH M. PATEL & CO., 3-4, VITHALBHAI BHAVAN, NR. S. P. COLONY RLY. CROSSING, AHMEDABAD 13. / VS. ACIT, RANGE 2, BARODA. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AERPP 3795 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUKESH PATEL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 16/07/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/10/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)II, BARODA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CAB/II-447/ 13-14 DATED 05-08- 2014 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 03-03-2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12 . - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 50% ON NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ACQUIRED DURING THE P ERIOD 01/04/2009 TO 30/09/2009, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. RULES. ACCORDINGLY, HE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER-IN RESTRICTING DEPRECIATION S UCH VEHICLE AT RS.3,48,143/- (AT THE RATE OF 15%), AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS,11,60,477/- (AT THE RATE OF 50%). 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/-, TREATED AS ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES MET OUT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, OU T OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,21,613/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,58,565/-, OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST CLAIMED TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,14,087/-. THE SAID DIS ALLOWANCE IS GROSSLY UNJUSTIFIED BOTH ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS IN LAW. THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS STATED HEREINABOVE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT HE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO PRESS THE GROUNDS NO.2. THER EFORE WE DISMISS THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 IS THAT LD CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE FROM RS. 11 ,60,477/- TO RS. 3,48,143/-. - 3 - 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF QUARRY CRUSHING MACHINERY, ITS PARTS AND ALSO INTO JOB WORK OF ENGINEERING GOO DS. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF TWO FIRMS NAMEL Y M/S. MECH TECH ENGINEERS AND MECH TECH INCORPORATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO PARTNER IN TWO FIRMS NAMELY SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS AND PARISHRAM ENGINEERS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION O N VEHICLE (CAR @50%). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE F OR CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION ON THE VEHICLE @50% IN PURSUANCE TO TH E NOTIFICATION NO.10/2009 DATED 19-01-2009 ISSUED BY CBDT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AS SPECIFIED THEREIN. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WAS THAT I T SHOULD BE PURCHASED DURING THE SPECIFIED PERIOD I.E. JANUARY 2009 & SEP TEMBER, 2009 AND SHOULD BE PUT TO USE BEFORE THE FIRST APRIL, 2009. SIMILARLY, THE WEIGHT OF THE LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE SHOULD NOT EXCEED MORE THAN 6000 KG. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLAIM ING DEPRECIATION ON ITS VEHICLE NAMELY MERCEDES CARRYING THE WEIGHT OF 2220 KG WHICH IS BELOW THE SPECIFIED LIMIT. THUS, AS PER THE ASSESSE E HE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @50% ON THE VALUE OF VEHICLE. 5.3 HOWEVER, THE AO DISAGREED WITH THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AVAILAB LE TO THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHICH NEEDS TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE RTO U NDER THE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. THE VEHICLE ON WHICH THE DEPRE CIATION WAS CLAIMED AT THE RATE OF 50% WAS NOT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. THER EFORE, THE AO HELD - 4 - THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION @50% RA THER HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @15% AT VALUE OF THE VEHICLE. ACCORDIN GLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.8,12,334/- (DEPRECIATION 11,60,477/- BEING 50% - 3,48,143 BEING 15% OF THE V ALUE OF VEHICLE) AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD CI T(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER THE VEHICLE WITH RTO UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATI ON ON THE VEHICLE PURCHASE BY HIM IS ELIGIBLE @50% AT ITS VALUE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE ORDER OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DALEEP S. CHANDNAN VS. ACIT, REPORTED IN 14 SOT 233. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A VANTI FEEDS LTD. REPORTED IN 35 SOT 50 . HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) DISAGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAID VEHICLE I.E. MERCEDES HAS BEEN PURCHASED AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT N O PROOF HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE VEHICLE IS REGIST ERED AS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. IN FACT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE VEH ICLE CONCERNED IS NOT REGISTERED AS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WITH RTO, BU T THE SAME WAS USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE APPELLANT HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @ 50 % ON THIS VEHICLE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED DEPRECIATI ON TO RS.3,48,143/- @ 15% AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS.11,60,477/- @50% AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THIS GROUND OF APPEA L FAILS. - 5 - 6.1 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. LD AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MAD E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7.1 THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13 ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH VEHICLE AT A RATE I.E. 50%. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI PRODUCT VS. ITO REPORTE D IN 75 TAXMANN.COM 231. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE VEHICLE WHICH IS USED FOR THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSES CAN BE ALLOWED FOR THE DEPRECIATION @50%. THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IS THE ONE WHICH IS A LLOWED TO USE YELLOW NUMBER PLATE. 8.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY INCOME FROM TH E USE OF VEHICLE. THEREFORE IT IS CONCLUDED THAT VEHICLE IS NOT USED FOR THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE A RE NOT IN DISPUTE, - 6 - THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REPEAT THE SAME F OR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, CONVENIENCE AND ADJUDICATION. 9.1 AS PER THE NOTIFICATION NO.10/2009 DATED 19 JAN UARY 2009 ISSUED BY THE CBDT A VEHICLE PURCHASED DURING THE SPECIFIE D PERIOD AND PUT TO USE BEFORE THE 1 ST OCTOBER, 2009 IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HIGHE R RATE I.E. 50%. IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR THERE IS NO MENTIONE D THAT THE VEHICLE NEEDS TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE RTO UNDER THE CATEG ORY OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEPRECIATION ON A HIGHER RATE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI PRODUCTS (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. AO HAS GRANTED DEPREC IATION AT THE RATE OF 15% WITHOUT EXAMINING RELEVANT PROVISIONS. IT APPEA RS THAT HIS FINDING IS BASED UPON HIS EXPERIENCE AND PAST IMPRESSION. HE W AS OF THE OPINION THAT ONCE BOARD HAS NOT GRANTED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIAT ION TO CARS, WHICH ARE PUT IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRING, THEN HOW A PARTNER, WHO USED MOTOR CAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS CAN BE GRANTED AT A SUCH RA TE. IN THE CASE HE HAD AN IMPRESSION, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AT THE M OST COULD BE GRANTED TO THE CAR USED FOR THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PEOPLE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT CBDT HAS AMENDED I.T. RUL ES BY INCOME TAX (THIRD AMENDMENT) RULES, 2009 AND NEW APPENDIX HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. THE LD. CIT (A) MADE REFERENCE TO NOTIFICATION NO.1 0/2009 DATED 19.1.2009 AND ALSO PARA-6 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION WHICH GIVES DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. I HAVE EXAMINED THIS NOTIFICATI ON AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.1.426 OF INCOME TAX RULES (3RD EDITION) OF TAXMA NN I.E. 2016 EDITION. PARAGRAPH-6 CONTEMPLATES DEFINITION OF 'COMMERCIAL VEHICLE'. THIS PARAGRAPH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.1.433 OF THE TAXM ANN'S INCOME TAX RULES. I FIND IT IS VERBATIM SAME AS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI. THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION THAT VEHICLE WOULD QUALI FY AS 'COMMERCIAL VEHICLES' WHEN LICENSED TO BE USED AS PUBLIC TRANSP ORT. FOR FACILITY OF REFERENCE, I TAKE NOTE OF THIS AS UNDER: - 7 - '6. 'COMMERCIAL VEHICLE' MEANS 'HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE ', 'HEAVY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE', 'LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE', 'MEDIUM GOOD S VEHICLE' AND 'MEDIUM PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE' BUT DOES NOT INCLU DE 'MAXI-CAB', 'MOTOR-CAB', 'TRACTOR' AND 'ROAD-ROLLER'. THE EXPRE SSIONS 'HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE', 'HEAVY PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE', 'LIGHT M OTOR VEHICLE', 'MEDIUM GOODS VEHICLE', 'MEDIUM PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE', ' MAXI-CAB', 'MOTOR- CAB', 'TRACTOR' AND 'ROADROLLER' SHALL HAVE THE MEA NINGS RESPECTIVELY AS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN SECTION 2 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (59 OF 1988).' 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY DISPARITY ON FACTS. I ALLOW APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 9.2 WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD CIT(A) IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ALLOWED THE APPE AL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RAT E. THE LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT S ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE HAVE NO ALTERNAT E EXCEPT TO REVERSE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 10. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD CI T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.7,58,565/- OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.15,14,087/-. 11. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS CLAIMED INTERE ST EXPENSES OF RS.15,14,087/- ON THE MONEY BORROWED FROM SEVERAL P ARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST @15% ON ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FRO M THE PARTIES EXCEPT IN ONE CASE WHERE HE WAS PAYING INTEREST @12%. THE AMOUNT OF LOAN AND INTEREST PAID THEREON ALONG WITH RATE OF INTEREST I S DETAILED AS UNDER: - 8 - DEPOSITOR LOAN AMOUNT INTEREST AMOUNT INTEREST RATE (%) DIPAK M SHROFF 1141000 171150 15 OMKAR & CO 1760000 264000 15 P K & CO 930000 139500 15 SHYAMPRIYA FINANCE 1500000 225000 15 BHADRESH A PATEL 1580489 237073 15 BHADRESH A PATEL HUF 312662 46899 15 BHARATIBEN A PATEL 599688 89953 15 HIREN NARENDRAKUMAR PATEL 1066434 159965 15 NATHALAL KALIDAS SHAH 500000 60000 12 TRUPATIBEN A PATEL 472743 70911 15 SANKKUMAR PRASAD 330908 49636 15 SANKKUMAR PRASAD 330908 49636 15 TOTAL 10193924 1514087 11.1 THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT WITHOUT EARNING ANY IN TEREST INCOME THEREON. THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT STAND AS UND ER: SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. INVESTMENT IN THE FIRMS 13,60,000/- 2. INVESTMENT IN LIC 36,07,100/- 3. FLAT BOOKING ADVANCE 1,00,000/- 11.2 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE INT EREST BEARING FUND HAS BEEN DIVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO NON-INTEREST L OAN AND ADVANCES, INVESTMENT ETC. THEREFORE, THE AO WORKED OUT THE PR OPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE MONEY ADVANCED /INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.7,58,565/- ONLY. THUS, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. - 9 - 12. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD C IT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED T HE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.50,57,100/- (RS.13,50,000/- FOR FIRMS, RS.36 ; 07,100/- FOR LIC & SHARES AND RS.1,00,000/- FOR FLAT BOOKING) FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ASSESSEE IS PAYING AVERAGE INTEREST @ 15%. THEREFOR E, IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED PROPORTION ATE INTEREST OF RS.7,58,565/- OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.15,14,087 /- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12.1 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.1,04,56,940/- WHICH IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THAT THE MONEY WAS ADVANCED/INVESTED OUT OF THE OWN FUND AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN S UPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY ON T HE CIT VS. RELIANCE AND UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. REPORTED IN 178 TAXMAN 135. 13.1 LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF FUND AS DISCUSSED A BOVE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITT ED THAT THERE IS NO BALANCE SHEET AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SUGGESTING THAT OWN FUND EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF LOAN AND ADVANCES/INVESTMENT AT THE A BOVE FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RELEVANT - 10 - INFORMATION NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . 15. LD AR IN HIS REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTE R CAN BE SENT BACK FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION BY THE AO TO CHECK WHETHER OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AS DISCUS SED ABOVE. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS ARE NOT UNDISPUTED T HEREFORE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REPEAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE SA KE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE AND THE ADJUDICATION. 16.1 FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS THAT OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY ADVANCED/I NVESTED WITHOUT ANY INTEREST INCOME. THEREFORE, INFERENCE CAN BE DR AWN THAT THE OWN FUND HAS BEEN INVESTED AS DISCUSSED AFORESAID. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS E SSENTIAL FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON HAND. THEREFORE WE ARE IN CLINED TO SENT BACK ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH THE DIRECTION TO CHECK WHETHER THE OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AM OUNT OF MONEY ADVANCED/INVESTED WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST INC OME. THUS, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE ON HAND FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW TO THE FILE OF AO. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. - 11 - 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03/10/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/10/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 14/08/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 7 PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/09/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 01/10/2018 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER