Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6262 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-06-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
05-03-2018
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 308/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 DR. BIMAL ROY SONI, PLOT NO. 11, J.L.N. MARG, CHETAK MARG, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AFPPS 1588 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 275/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DR. BIMAL ROY SONI, PLOT NO. 11, J.L.N. MARG, CHETAK MARG, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AFPPS 1588 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 309/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 DR. BIMAL ROY SONI, PLOT NO. 11, J.L.N. MARG, CHETAK MARG, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AFPPS 1588 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 276/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DR. BIMAL ROY SONI, PLOT NO. 11, J.L.N. MARG, CHETAK MARG, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AFPPS 1588 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 2 FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K. JAIN (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. SEEMA MEENA (JCIT-DR) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/06/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/06/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BENCH THESE ARE TWO SET OF CROSS APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST T HE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 12/12/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 AND 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE H AVE RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEAL. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDE R:- GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19,06,087/= (OUT OF TOTAL D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,01,51,628/=) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A (R. W. RULE 8D) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BE TWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTMENT MADE UNDER BUSINESS E XPEDIENCY, IN SHARES OF LIMITED COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS Y IELDING INCOME - BOTH TAXABLE AND EXEMPTED, THUS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19,06,087/= DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS HAS BEEN HELD CONSISTENTL Y BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES OF PRECEDING YEARS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14552/= BEING PAYMEN T OF HOUSE TAX OF THE PROPERTY LEASED OUT TO THE TENANT AND CHARGE D TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OWNER FOR ALLEGED NON REFERENC E OF RELATED PROPERTY. GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL: ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 3 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,01,51,628/- MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES TO RS. 19,06,087/-. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PA SSED. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE SOL E GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE INTERLINKED AND IS REGARDING THE DI SALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 2,01,51,628/-, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS. 19,06,087/-. THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR BY PROFESSION AND WAS PROPRIETOR OF SONI HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALA RY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST EXPENSES AMO UNTING TO RS. 2,60,12,613/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTME NT IN THE SHARES OF GROUP COMPANIES AND CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTION IN THE FIR M AS WELL AS DEPOSITS. SINCE THE DIVIDEND INCOME ARISING ON INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS WELL AS PROFIT OF PARTNERSHIP ARE INCOME NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE TOT AL INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THEREFORE, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, THE EXPENDITURE ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 4 INCURRED IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 2,01,51,628/- WHICH COMPRISES THE DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,94,93,819/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF INDIRECT ADMIN ISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 6,57,809/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INVESTM ENT IN THE SHARES WERE MADE FOR STRATEGIC PURPOSES, THEREFORE, THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON SUCH INVESTMENT. THE L D. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RES TRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 19,06,087/-. THUS, BOTH, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED THE CROSS APPEALS BEFORE TH E ITAT. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERA TED THE CONTENTIONS AS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE EARLIER YEARS AND THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 20 02-03 VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2007 IN ITA NO. 382/JP/2006 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE INVESTME NT IN QUESTION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHARES OF GROUP COMPANI ES FOR HOLDING AND ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 5 CONTROLLING SHARE AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE IS C ALLED FOR U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2009 -10, WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THUS, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR AND PARTNER IN VARIOUS COMPANIES/FIRMS ENG AGED IN MEDICAL PROFESSION/PROVIDING MEDICAL AND ANCILLARY SERVICES AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF EXPANSION OF THESE PROFESSION AL ASSIGNMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE SHARES IN THE COMPANIES WI TH THE PURPOSE TO CONTROL STAKES AND ALSO TO CONTRIBUTE THE CAPITAL I N THE FIRMS WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF CONTROLLING THE MANAGEMENT. T HEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME BUT TO HAVE CONTROL OF THE MANAGEMENTS AND AFFAIRS OF T HESE CONCERNS/ENTITIES WHERE THE ASSESSEES PROFESSIONAL INTEREST IS INVOLV ED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALES AND PURCHASES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE SHARES F OR CONTROL OF THE STAKE IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTM ENT LTD. VS. CIT, NEW DELHI 402 ITR 640. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT THE ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 6 ASSESSEE HAS USED THE BORROWED FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS THEN THE EXPENDITUR E OF INTEREST OF SUCH BORROWED FUND IS A DIRECT EXPENDITURE AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME. SHE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. AS F AR AS THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DI SPUTED THE FACT THAT THE BORROWED FUND WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND CAPITAL INFUSION IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE INCOM E OF DIVIDEND AND PROFIT OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE DIRECT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAKIN G SUCH INVESTMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME. AS REG ARDS THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER A SSESSMENT 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 EXP ENDITURE. THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THOUGH, WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BUT SINCE IT WAS A QUE STION 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 ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 7 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 AUTHORITI ES BELOW. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SISTER CO NCERNS WAS TO HAVE CONTROLLING INTEREST AND IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTME NT 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 WA S BORNE BY THE PARTNERS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SHARE IN PROFITS OF FIRM APPAR ENTLY SEEMS TO BE EXEMPT INCOME, BUT EVENTUALLY THE SAME COMES IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS AFTER SUFFERING TAX IN THEIR PROFIT SHARIN G RATIO. THUS THE TAX IS ALSO BORNE BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTNER. WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH 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 U NDER :- 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES 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 CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT THE INVESTMENT WHEREFROM I T HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME WERE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAIN ING THE CONTROLLING INTEREST. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14A WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS TH E INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE CONT ROLLING INTEREST. THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO THE FACTS IN THIS YEAR AS W ELL. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY BINDING PREC EDENT. 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. ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 8 THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS YEAR AS WELL. THERE FORE, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADD ITION. GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES 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 T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE 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 HAV E ADOPTED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS MADE IN ITA NO. 416/JP/2016. THE ONLY E FFECTIVE GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 416/JP /2016, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D/R, THE SAM E IS DISMISSED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING AND CONTROLLING INTE REST IN THESE CONCERNS AND THEREFORE, THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED ON SUCH INV ESTMENT WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. H OWEVER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT, NEW DELHI (SUPRA) HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED THIS POINT IN P ARA 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 TA KEN 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 WHI CH DOES NOT FORM PART OF ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 9 THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT'. AXIOMATICALLY, IT IS THAT EXPENDITURE ALONE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE IN COME WHICH IS INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME THAT HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. IF AN EX PENDITURE INCURRED HAS NO CAUSAL CONNECTION WITH THE EXEMPTED INCOME, THEN SU CH AN EXPENDITURE WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE TREATED AS NOT RELATED TO THE IN COME 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 A S 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 H AND, 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 WOR DS 'IN RELATION TO' IN THE GIVEN SCENARIO, VIZ. WHERE THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON T HE SHARES IS EARNED, THOUGH THE DOMINANT PURPOSE FOR SUBSCRIBING IN THOS E SHARES OF THE INVESTEE COMPANY WAS NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND. WE HAVE TWO SCENA RIOS 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 CA SES ARE THOSE WHERE THE SHARES OF INVESTEE COMPANY WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSE ES AS STOCK-IN-TRADE (I.E. AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY) AND NOT AS INVESTMENT TO EA RN DIVIDENDS. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE EXP ENDITURE WAS INCURRED, IN RESPECTIVE SCENARIOS, IN RELATION TO THE DIVIDEND I NCOME OR NOT. 34. HAVING CLARIFIED THE AFORESAID POSITION, THE FIRS T AND FOREMOST ISSUE THAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE DOMINANT PUR POSE TEST, WHICH IS PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE ASSESSEES WOULD APPLY W HILE INTERPRETING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT OR WE HAVE TO GO BY THE THEORY OF AP PORTIONMENT. 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 DOUB T, THE ASSESSEE LIKE MAXOPP INVESTMENT LIMITED MAY HAVE MADE THE INVESTM ENT 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. F ACT REMAINS THAT SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME IS NON-TAXABLE. IN THIS SCENARIO, I F EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED ON EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME, THAT MUCH OF THE EX PENDITURE WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME HAS TO BE DISAL LOWED AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. KEEPING THIS OBJEC TIVE BEHIND SECTION14A OF THE ACT IN MIND, THE SAID PROVISION HAS TO BE IN TERPRETED, PARTICULARLY, THE WORD 'IN RELATION TO THE INCOME' THAT DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. CONSIDERED IN THIS HUE, THE PRINCIPLE OF APPORTIONM ENT OF EXPENSES COMES INTO PLAY AS THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE WHICH IS ENGRAIN ED 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 TH E SAKE OF CONTINUITY OF DISCUSSION, WE WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE THE FOLLOWING FE W LINES THEREFROM. 'THE NEXT PHRASE IS, 'IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH D OES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT'. IT MEANS THAT IF AN IN COME DOES NOT FORM ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 10 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 NON- TAXABLE HAS, IN PRINCIPLE, BEEN NOW WIDENED UNDER S ECTION 14A.' 35. THE DELHI HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, CORRECTLY OBSERV ED 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 R ESPECT OF SAID BUSINESS WAS DEDUCTIBLE AND, IN SUCH A CASE, THE PRINCIPLE O F 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 AC T ITSELF CAME INTO FORCE. THE AFORESAID INTENT WAS EXPRESSED LOUDLY AND CLEAR LY 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 INC LINED TO ACCEPT THE OPINION OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHICH WENT B Y 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 REASON ING, APPEALS OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LIMITED AS WELL AS SIMILAR CASES WHERE S HARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEES TO HAVE CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE I NVESTEE 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 INV ESTMENTS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS OF BANKING FALLING UNDER THE HEAD 'PROF ITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION'. ON THAT BASIS, THE CIRCULAR CONTAI NS 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, TH EY 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 SHA LL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S' OR IT IS TO FALL UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESS ION'. 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 A ND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION'. THE BOARD ALSO WENT TO THE EXTENT OF S AYING THAT THIS WOULD NOT ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 11 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 REG ULATION ACT, 1949 APPLIES. 38. FROM THIS, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT POINTED OUT THAT THIS CIRCULAR CARVES OUT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'STOCK-IN-TRADE' A ND 'INVESTMENT' AND PROVIDES THAT IF THE MOTIVE BEHIND PURCHASE AND SAL E OF SHARES IS TO EARN PROFIT, THEN THE SAME WOULD BE TREATED AS TRADING P ROFIT AND IF THE OBJECT IS TO DERIVE INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND THEN THE PROFIT WO ULD BE SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED FROM INVESTMENT. TO THIS EXTENT, THE HIGH C OURT MAY BE CORRECT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TEST OF DOM INANT 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 THO SE CASES ARE TO BE DECIDED WHERE THE SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES ARE PURCHASED B Y THE ASSESSEES AS 'STOCK-IN-TRADE' AND NOT AS 'INVESTMENT'. WE PROCEE D 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 AR E HELD AS 'STOCK-IN-TRADE', CERTAIN DIVIDEND IS ALSO EARNED, THOUGH INCIDENTALL Y, WHICH IS ALSO AN INCOME. HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 10 (34) OF TH E ACT, THIS DIVIDEND INCOME IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME AN D IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THIS TRIGGERS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF T HE 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 CA SE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN ACQUIRING THOSE SHARES WILL HAVE TO BE APPORTIONED. 40. WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS IN THE STATE BANK OF PATIA LA CASES THAT THE AO, WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAD ALREADY RESTRICTE D THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT INCOME BY APPLYI NG 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 A PPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO, CIT(A) DISALLOWE D 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 PUN JAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ARRIVED AT A CORRECT CONCLUSION BY AFFIRM ING THE VIEW OF THE ITAT, THOUGH WE ARE NOT SUBSCRIBING TO THE THEORY OF DOMI NANT INTENTION APPLIED BY THE HIGH COURT. IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT IN TH OSE CASES WHERE SHARES ARE HELD AS 'STOCK-IN-TRADE', IT BECOMES A BUSINESS ACT IVITY 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 AR E HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ULTIMATELY TRADE THOSE S HARES BY SELLING THEM TO ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 12 EARN PROFITS. THE SITUATION HERE IS, THEREFORE, DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE LIKE MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WOUL D 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 ASSES SEE ALONE. THEREFORE, EVEN AT THE TIME OF INVESTING INTO THOSE SHARES, TH E ASSESSEE KNOWS THAT IT MAY GENERATE DIVIDEND INCOME AS WELL AND AS AND WHE N SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME IS GENERATED THAT WOULD BE EARNED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN CONTRAST, WHERE THE SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THIS MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY A SITUATION. THE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO LIQUIDATE THOSE SHARES WHENE VER THE SHARE PRICE GOES UP IN ORDER TO EARN PROFITS. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EALS 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 RESPE CT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED HEREINABOVE. 41. HAVING REGARD TO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 14A(2) O F 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 ASSESS EE IN HIS RETURN HAS HIMSELF APPORTIONED BUT THE AO WAS NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID A PPORTIONMENT. IN THAT EVENTUALITY, IT WILL HAVE TO RECORD ITS SATISFACTIO N TO THIS EFFECT. FURTHER, WHILE RECORDING SUCH A SATISFACTION, NATURE OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING THE SHARES/MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN SHAR ES 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 OT HERWISE IRRESPECTIVE OF HAVING HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IS NOT R ELEVANT FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND APPORTIONMENT OF THE EXPENDI TURE, 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 PURPOS E OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS YIELDED TAX FREE INCOME. THEREFORE, THE DIRECT E XPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS EVEN OTHERWIS E NOT ALLOWABLE AGAINST ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 13 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 ASSES SEE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INDIRE CT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT HA VING THE DEFENCE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST EXPEND ITURE WHICH HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME SHALL BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A O F THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INDIRECT ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENDITURE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR FACT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATION OF THESE I NVESTMENTS AND EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME THEN THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER OF CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. THE ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 14 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THE PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX OF PROPERTY OF RS. 14,552/-, HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE FOR ACTUAL PAYMENT OF HOUSE TA X. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE O F PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE TOOK A PLEA THAT THE HOUS E TAX AMOUNT OF RS. 14,552/- WAS DEDUCTED BY THE TENANT FROM THE RENT PA YABLE 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 HA S REITERATED ITS CONTENTION THAT SINCE THIS HOUSE TAX WAS PAID BY THE TENANT AND THE SAME WAS DEDUCTED FROM RENT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS E LIGIBLE 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 HO USE 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 PERTAIN S TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE QUOTE PROVISO TO SECTION 23(1) O F THE ACT AS UNDER: 23. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22 , THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 15 ( A ) THE 57 SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPE CTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR; OR ( B ) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS L ET 57 AND THE ACTUAL RENT 57 RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE 57 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 L ET 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 THER EOF IS LESS THA N THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( A ), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE : PROVIDED THAT THE TAXES LEVIED 60 BY ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEDUCTED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN W HICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH TAXES WAS INCURRED BY THE OWNER ACCORDING TO THE METHOD O F ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM) IN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARE ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM. THUS, THE PROVISO STIPULATES THE DEDUCTION IN RESPEC T OF LIABILITY OF PAYMENT OF TAX BUT ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT. SUCH DEDUCTION I S ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARE ACTUALLY PAID. THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH CLAIMED THE HOUS E 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 ER ROR 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. ITA 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018_ BIMAL ROY SONI VS ACIT 16 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/06/2018. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN FOT; IKY JKO (BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 TH JUNE, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- DR. BIMAL ROY SONI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 308 & 309/JP/2018 & 275 & 276/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR
Mehul