ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. HCL Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 322/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 32220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRAAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI C BENC H BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR , JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NOS..322& 2583/DEL/2012 AYS: 2007-08 & 2008-09 A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI V/S . M/S HCL COMNET LTD., 806, SIDDHARTHA, 96, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) [PAN :AAACH 9667 H ] (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2239/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S HCL COMNET LTD., 806, SIDDHARTHA, 96, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI V/S . A.C.I.T.CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI AJAY VOHRA,AR REVENUE BY SHRI R.S. NEGI,DR DATE OF HEARING 30-07-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24-08-2012 O R D E R A.N. PAHUJA:- THESE THREE APPEALS APPEAL FILED ON 20.01.2012 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 31-10-2011 OF THE LD . CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE CROSS APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10-05-2012 AND THE REVENUE ON 29-05-2012 AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 14.03.2012 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI, RAISE THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- I.T.A. NO.322/DEL./2012[REVENUE-AY2007-08] 1. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 2 DISALLOWANCE OF ` ` 26,49,206/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A. 2. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF ` ` 3,23,127/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON UPS, PRINTERS, SCANNERS E TC. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING . I.T.A. NO.2239/DEL./2012[ASSESSEE-AY2008-09] 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTIN G TO ` `44,24,562/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 1.1 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF OW N SURPLUS FUNDS AND NO EXPENSE WAS ATTRIBUTED FOR EARNING OF TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME. 1.2 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NO T APPRECIATING THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A(2) AND 14A(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-T AX RULES, 1962 FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE SAID SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD SATISFACTION THAT CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE UNDER THE SAID SECTION, WAS INCORRECT. 1.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ONLY AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE COULD AT BEST BE ATTRIBUTED TO EARNING OF T AX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME. 1.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A OF THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED ` ` 56,485/-, ON THE BASIS USED FOR DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE U/S 14A IN THE EAR LIER YEARS. ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 3 1.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AN D IN LAW IN WRONGLY COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF TH E ACT TO BE ` ` 44,24,562/- INSTEAD OF ` ` 40,24,562/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ELEVATOR TO THE EXTENT OF ` `131,400/- HOLDING THE SAME TO BE A PART OF BUILDING INSTEAD OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTE R, AMEND OR VARY FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. I.T.A. NO.2583/DEL./2012[REVENUE-AY2008-09] 1. WHETHER LEARNED CIT(A) WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF ` `99,58,780/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 14A. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTE R OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2007-08, FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS AR E THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 19,08,29,777/- FILED ON 30.10.2007, ENGAGED IN BUS INESS OF COMMISSIONING OF NETWORKING SOLUTIONS AND PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SER VICES FOR MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NETWORKING SOLUTIONS, WAS TAKEN UP F OR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), ISSUED ON 21.08.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` ` 1,39,11,977/- EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. TO A Q UERY BY THE AO, SEEKING DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THEY DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENS ES FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME NOR ANY EFFORTS AND TIME WAS INVOLVED AS ALL THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY ITS ULTIMA TE HOLDING COMPANY WHILE THE ENTIRE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS AUTOMATICALLY CREDITED THROUGH ECS AND REINVESTED ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 4 IN THE SAME MUTUAL FUND SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO P OINTED OUT THAT NO INTEREST COST WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INVESTMENT, THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS HAVING BEEN FUNDED OUT OF INTEREST FREE LOANS RECEIVED FROM ITS HOLDING COMPANY AND THUS, NO EXPENDITURE COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO EARNING OF DIVID END INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER OBJECTED TO THE INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1 962. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUN D THAT EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PASSIVE ACTIVITY HA VING NO INPUT. ACCORDINGLY, WHILE REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE A CT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 AND RELYING UPON DECISIONS IN CIT VS. SHARWAN KUMAR SWARUP,210 ITR 886(SC); H.H. SIR RAMA VARMA VS. CIT, 205 ITR 4 33 (SC); CIT VS. PODAR CEMENT (P) LTD,. 226 ITR 625 (SC); S. SUBHASH VS. C IT,248 ITR 512(MADRAS); CIT VS. SHELLY PRODUCTS LTD., 261 ITR 367(SC); ITO VS. M/S DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.8057/MUM/2003 AND M/S MAX OPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO.1372/D/05, THE AO DISALL OWED AN AMOUNT OF ` `27,19,110/- . 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A),FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT A ND ANOTHER, 234 CTR 1 (BOMBAY AND DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE AY 20 05-06,REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` ` 69,894/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 11 THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE CIT(A)-X AS ABOVE. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH HIS OBSERVATIONS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH HIM WITH REGARD TO TH E REASONABLE BASIS ADOPTED BY HIM FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT WAS ACCORDINGLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE PROVIDE D AS UNDER:- EXPENSES RELATING TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT: PARTICULARS AMOUNT[IN ` ] PERSONNEL COST 83,67,000/- RENT 8,45,704/- DEPRECIATION 5,00,000/- COMMUNICATION 1,21,000/- ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 5 EXPENSES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TOTAL 0.47 CALCULATION OF PROPORTION BETWEEN GROSS RECEIPTS AN D TAX FREE INCOME. PARTICULARS AMOUNT GROSS RECEIPTS 2,95,25,52,078/- DIVIDEND 1,39,11,977/- % OF PROPORTION 0.47 12 THUS, THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXE MPT INCOME COMES TO ` ` 69,894/- I.E. (.47 X 14833704). DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD TO THE EXTENT TO `69, 894/-. THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF ` `26,49,206/- (2719100-69894). 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF E LD. CIT(A).THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDIN GS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) WERE BASED ON HIS FINDINGS IN THE AY 2005- 06,TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MATTER HAVING BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO BY THE ITAT IN THEIR DEC ISION DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2012 OF IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO.5051/DEL./2 011, ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S MAX OPP. INVESTMENT LTD. VS. ACIT, 203 TAXMAN 364(DEL.) . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE BASED ON HIS OWN FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE AY 2005-06. IN THAT YEAR, THE ITAT VIDE THEIR AFOR ESAID ORDER DATED 20.01.2012 IN IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTE NTIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. THOUGH LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DISCUSSED ALL THE RELATED FIGURES IN HIS ORDER, BUT , APPARENTLY, HE HAS NOT CONFRONTED ALL THESE FIGURES TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE O F 25% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF F ACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD MEET THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO R ECONSIDER THE DISALLOWANCE KEEPING IN MIND THE AFOREMENTIONED DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVE STMENT LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE A ND AFTER GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL RE-COM PUTE THE DISALLOWANCE BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFORE MENTIONED DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AS PER THE PROVISION S OF LAW. 6. WE MAY POINT OUT THAT ,HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 18.11.2011 IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT ,[2011] 15 TAXMANN.COM 390 (DELHI) HELD AS UNDER: '41. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A, AS WE HAVE SEE N, STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXP ENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED'. OF COURSE, THIS DETERMINATION CAN ONLY BE UNDERTAKEN IF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THIS PART OF SECTION 14A(2) WHICH EXPL ICITLY REQUIRES THE FULFILLMENT OF A CONDITION PRECEDENT IS ALSO IMPLIC IT IN SECTION 14A(1) [AS IT NOW STANDS] AS ALSO IN ITS INITIAL AVATAR AS SECTION 14 A. IT IS ONLY THE PRESCRIPTION WITH REGARD TO THE METHOD OF DETERMINING SUCH EXPEN DITURE WHICH IS NEW AND WHICH WILL OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS, S ECTION 14A, EVEN PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF SUB-SECTIONS (2) & (3) WOULD RE QUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIRST REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGA RD TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND SUCH REJECTION MUST BE FOR DISCLOSE D COGENT REASONS. IT IS THEN THAT THE QUESTION OF DETERMINATION OF SUCH EXP ENDITURE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD ARISE. THE REQUIREMENT OF ADOPTING A SPECIFIC METHOD OF DETERMINING SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY VIRTUE OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A. PRIOR TO THAT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS FREE TO ADOPT ANY REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD. 42. THUS, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HELD THAT SUB-SECTI ONS (2) & (3) OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D WOULD OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY (AND, N OT RETROSPECTIVELY) DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT TO SATIS FY HIMSELF WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGAR D TO SUCH EXPENDITURE. IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY REF LECTED THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE, HE HAS TO DO NOTHING FURTHER. ON THE O THER HAND, IF HE IS SATISFIED ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 7 ON AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND FOR COGENT REASONS THA T THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRE CT, HE IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE ON THE BAS IS OF A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT. IT WOULD BE APP ROPRIATE TO RECALL THE WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN WALFORT (SUPRA) TO TH E FOLLOWING EFFECT:- ' THE THEORY OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE BETWEEN TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE HAS, IN PRINCIPLE, BEEN NOW WIDENED UNDER SECTION 14A .' SO, EVEN FOR THE PRE-RULE 8D PERIOD, WHENEVER THE I SSUE OF SECTION 14A ARISES BEFORE AN ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS, FIRST O F ALL, TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE SAID ACT. EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO VERIFY THE CORRE CTNESS OF SUCH CLAIM. IN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED WITH THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OR NO EXPENDITURE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE INSOFAR AS THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IS CONCER NED. IN SUCH EVENTUALITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT EMBARK UP ON A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 1 4A(1). IN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT, ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, SATISFIED WITH T HE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL HAVE TO REJECT THE CLAIM AND STATE THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. HAVING DONE SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOM E WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE SAID ACT. HE IS REQUIRED TO DO SO ON THE BASIS OF A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPO RTIONMENT.' . 7. AS ALREADY OBSERVED, IN THE INSTANT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE DENIED INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM TOTAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN HUGE INV ESTMENTS OF ` 512,670,533/- WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN UNITS A ND MUTUAL FUNDS. IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT, EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURR ED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH CLAIM. IN CASE , THE AO IS NOT, ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY, SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL HAVE TO REJECT THE CLAIM AND STATE THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. HAVING DONE SO, THE AO HAS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOM E WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 8 THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE SAID ACT, HONBLE HIGH C OURT CONCLUDED . FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THIS DECISION, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MACHINO PLASTIC LTD IN THEIR DECISION DATED 28.2.2012 IN I TA NO. 92 OF 2011, RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO, BEING HANDICAPPED BEC AUSE OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RELEVANT DETAILS AND PARTICULAR S .IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE AO WAS HANDICAPPED, BECAUSE OF FAILURE OF THE ASSES SEE TO FURNISH RELEVANT DETAILS AND PARTICULARS WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWAN CE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHETHER TH E ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS TO FURNISH THE DETAILS DESIRED BY THE A O NOR THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) SEEMS TO HAVE UNDERTOOK ANY EXERCISE TO ASCERTAIN T HE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE OBJECTIVELY IN MANAGING AND SUPERVISING THE AFORESA ID HUGE INVESTMENTS OF ` 512,670,533 /- IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SECURITIES. IN VIEW OF THE F OREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) OR THE AO DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AFORESAID DECISIONS INCLUDING THAT OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE, AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT O F AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN MANAGI NG AND SUPERVISING THE AFORESAID HUGE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUA L FUNDS & SECURITIES. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NOS. 1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. 8. GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E AY 2007-08 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` `3,23,127/-ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON UPS & PRINTERS. THE AO RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTERS PERIPHERALS, UPS AND PRINTERS @15% AS AGAINST CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE @60%, RESULTING IN DISALLOWANCE OF ` `3,23,127. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 9 16. WITH REGARD TO THIS DISALLOWANCE, THE APPELLA NT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT UPS, PRINTERS AND SCANNERS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF T HE COMPUTERS, WHICH CANNOT WORK IN ISOLATION, AND ARE COMPUTER PE RIPHERALS WHICH ARE ENTITLED TO THE DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE APPLIC ABLE TO THE COMPUTERS, I.E. 60%. FURTHER, WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASK FOR ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE THE ADDITION WAS I N CLEAR VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ON THIS COUNT ALSO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT ALS O RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD:- - DCIT VS. DATACRAFT INDIA LTD. (I.T.A. NOS.7462 & 754/MUM/2007), - CIT VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWERS LTD. (I.T.A. NO.1266 O F 2010)(DELHI). - EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA)(P) LTD. VS. ACIT ( 118 TTJ 652), (DELHI ITAT). - INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. SAMIRAN MAJUMDAR (98 ITD 119 ), (KOLKATTA ITAT). - CIT VS. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION (2011) 247 ITR 268 (SUPREME COURT). - M/S ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. (I.T.A. NO.3697/MU M/2008). - ACIT VS. CONTINENTAL CARRIERS (P) LTD. (I.T.A. NO.2 137/D/2008). - ACIT VS. M/S CINCOM SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD. (I.T.A. NO.1534/D/2008). - CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (I.T.A . NO.2753,2851,3680,3775 AND 4477). 17. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND DECIDED IN A NUMBER OF CASES BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT AS WELL AS DELHI HIGH COURT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE COMPUTER A CCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS, PRINTER AND SCANNER, UPS ETC ARE ENTIT LED TO HIGHER RATE DEPRECIATION @60% ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ACCE SSORIES AND PERIPHERALS FORM AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON UP S, PRINTERS AND SCANNER ETC. @60% AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 10 10. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FINDIN GS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. BSES RAJDHANI POWERS LTD. IN I.T. APPEAL NO. 1266 (DELHI ) OF 2010, IN THEIR DECISION DATED 31-8-2010 WHILE ADJUDICATING A SIMILAR ISSUE, HELD AS UNDER: 'WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS SUCH AS, PRINTERS, SCANNERS AND SER VER ETC. FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. IN FACT, THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTER. CO NSEQUENTLY, AS THEY ARE THE PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE OF 60 PER CENT.' 11.1 FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, ITAT I N ITO VS . OMNI GLOBE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P.) LTD., 131 ITD 280(DELHI) HELD THAT IF PERIPHERALS SUCH AS PRINTERS, SCANNERS AND SERVERS ETC. FORM INTEGRAL P ART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, UPS WILL ALSO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER S YSTEM, ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 60 PER CENT. IN ANOTH ER DECISION DATED 9.11.2010, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. CITYCORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD. IN ITA NOS. 1712& 1714/2010 FOLLOWED THEIR OWN DECISION IN BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD.(SUPRA) AND UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE ITAT, ALLOWI NG DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS LIKE PRINTERS ETC. . A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN CIT VS. M/S BONANZA PORTFOLIO LTD.: I.T.A. NO.83 3 OF 2011 BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 1 0.8.2011. IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN T HE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY CONTRARY DECISION NOR ANY OTHER MATER IAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE HAVE NO HESITATI ON IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A),ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @60% ON UPS & PRINTERS. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. . ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 11 12. ADVERTING NOW TO GROUND NOS. 1 TO 1.5 IN THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SECURITIES ,YIELDING DIVIDEND INCO ME, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, INTEREST FREE INTEREST ETC., WHICH DID NOT FORM PAR T OF TOTAL INCOME. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONCLU DED THAT EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PASSIVE ACTIVITY, HA VING NO INPUT. IN FACT, MAKING OF INVESTMENT, MAINTAINING OR CONTINUING INVESTMENT AN D TIME OF EXIT FROM INVESTMENT ARE WELL INFORMED AND WELL COORDINATED M ANAGEMENT DECISIONS INVOLVING NOT ONLY INPUTS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BUT ALSO ACUMEN OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONARIES. THEREFORE, COST WAS INBU ILT INTO EVEN SO CALLED PASSIVE INVESTMENT WHILE THERE WERE INCIDENTAL EX PENDITURE OF COLLECTION, TELEPHONE, FOLLOW UP, RESEARCH ETC. ACCORDINGLY, W HILE REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 AND IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO.626 & W P 2010 AND CHEM INVEST LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 317 ITR(AT) 86(SB), TH E AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` ` 1,39,83,342/-. 13. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISAL LOWANCE TO ` `44,24,562/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS WHICH ARE BEING RELIE D UPON BOTH BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS BY THE AO. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF TH E RULES OF ` `1,39,83,342/- ( ` `99,58,780 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND ` ` 40,24,562/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES). IN THIS REGARD THE FOREMOST CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT AO HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION BEFORE MAKING A DISALLOWA NCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON T HE DECISIONS OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF WIMCO SEEDLINGS LTD. (SUPRA) AN D, JINDAL PHOTO LTD. (SUPRA) AMONG OTHER DECISIONS. ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 12 6.1 THE SCOPE OF THE ABOVE SECTION WAS RECENTLY EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 64 DTR 122 WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT, IF AN EXPENDITURE HAS A RELATION OR CONNECTIO N WITH OR PERTAINS TO EXEMPT INCOME, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTI ON EVEN IF IT OTHERWISE, QUALIFIES UNDER THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT, IT IS ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRE D THAT ASSESSING OFFICER GETS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE TH E AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHI CH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE SAID ACT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED METHOD. THE PRESCRIBED METHOD IS THE ME THOD STIPULATED IN RULE 8D OF THE RULES WHICH IS APPLICA BLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THUS, THE NECESSARY PRECO NDITION FOR INVOKING SECTION 14A(2) READ WITH RULE 8D IS SATISF ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS INVOKED RULE 8D, IT IS THUS IMPLIED THAT, HE WAS NO T SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. IN ANY CASE, SINCE IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT, POWERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE CO-TERM INUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KANPUR GOAL SYNDICATE VS. CIT REPORT ED IN 53 ITR 225, THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A RE AD WITH RULE 8D BE NOT MADE, AS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THIS RULE IS MANDATORY IN NATURE. WITH REGARD TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SIMPLY STATED D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING THAT APART FROM ` ` 28,830/- WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY DISALLOWED IN THEIR COMPUTATION SHEET NO OT HER DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. FURTHER ALL INVESTMENTS ARE IN DEBT ORIENTED MUTUAL FUNDS, WHERE NO CONTINUOUS MONITORING IS REQUIRED A ND DIVIDEND IS AUTOMATICALLY CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT. FURTHER, ENTIRE INVESTMENT IS FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE APPELLANT FURTHER STATED THAT FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AR E SAME AND CIT(A)-X WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005- 06 CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING THE %AGE OF PROPORTION OF TAXABLE INCOME AND EXEMPT INCOME TO THE EXPENSES RELATED TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IF AT ALL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS WARRANTED, EVEN THEN THAT CANNOT BE MORE THAN `56,845/- . ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 13 6.3 FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ADDITION U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D HAS TWO COMPONEN TS VIZ INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF ` `99,58,780/- AND DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COST ` ` 40,24,562/-. 6.3.1. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST COMPONENT, AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES, I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS THAT THE INTEREST RELATING TO VEHICLE LEASE, TDS, SALES TAX AND BANK CHARGES HAVE NO RELATION WI TH THE INVESTMENTS, THE INCOME FROM WHICH YIELD THE EXEMPT INCOME. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST ON SHORT TERMS CURRENCY LOAN (BUYERS CREDIT) IT IS SEEN THAT THESE ARE GIVEN AS PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM THE IMPORTS ARE MADE BY THE APP ELLANT, OBVIOUSLY, THEREFORE, THESE LOANS ARE NOT RELATED T O THE INVESTMENT WHICH GIVES RISE TO EXEMPT INCOME, HENCE, THEREFORE , THE INTEREST ON FOREIGN CURRENCY LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWAN CE U/S 14A SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. SAME LOGIC GOES FOR THE INTEREST ON LOAN TAKEN FROM CISCO, FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAS PURCH ASED ASSETS ON THE BASIS OF SALES AND LEASE BANK AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I THEREFORE, HOLD THAT, THE A SSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN TAKING THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST BY APPL YING RULE 8D FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NOT CORRECT. 6.3.2. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES AS PER RULE 8D AM OUNTING TO ` `44,24,562/-, I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELL ANTS ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AS THE INVESTMENT IS GUIDED BY THEIR HOLDING COMPANY AND THE INVESTMENT IS IN MUTUAL FUNDS, OTHER DIVIDEND GOES AUTOMATICALLY THOUGH ECS . IN THE NATURE OF ANY PASSIVE ACTIVITY INVOLVING NO INPUT. IN FACT, IN MY VIEW. A) MAKING OF INVESTMENT, B) MAINTAINING OR CONTINUING WITH ANY INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR SHARE/MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. AND C) EVEN THE TIME WHEN TO EXIT FROM ONE INVESTMENT T O ANOTHER. ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 14 ALL THESE ACTIVITIES ARE WELL COORDINATED AND WELL INFORMED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, INVOLVING NOT ONLY INPUTS FRO M VARIOUS SOURCES BUT ALSO IT INVOLVES ACUMEN OF SENIOR MANAG EMENT DECISIONS WHETHER THEY SIT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OR HOLDING COMPANY. THESE ARE INCIDENTAL ADMINISTRATION EXPEN SES ON COLLECTING INFORMATION, RESEARCH ETC. WHICH HELPS I N ARRIVING AT A PARTICULAR INVESTMENT DECISIONS AND THESE EXPENSES, RELATING TO EARNING OF INCOME ARE EMBEDDED IN THE INDIRECT EXPE NSES. THE INVESTMENTS MADE BEING CONSCIOUS DECISIONS AND HAVI NG DEPLOYMENT OF THE FUNDS BRINGS INTO PICTURE EXPENDI TURE BY WAY OF COST OF FUNDS INVESTED. 6.3.3 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATI ON FROM THE APPELLANT, FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE AS SESSING OFFICER (AND CIT(A) IN VIEW OF HIS CO-TERMINUS POWE R WITH THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER) IS BOUND TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. ACCORDINGLY, BY APPLYING THE SAME, I COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A RULE 8D AT ` ` 44,24,562/- (0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS) AND THEREBY DISALLOWANCE IS WA RRANTED UNDER RULE 8D (2)(III). 14. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINS T THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF ` ` 44,24,562/- WHILE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF LD. CI T(A) HOLDING THAT PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BY APPLYING RUL E 8D WAS NOT CORRECT. THE LD. DR WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER CO NTENDED THAT OUT OF TOTAL FINANCE CHARGES OF ` ` 2,59,07,519/-, BANK CHARGES OF ` ` 96,61,717/- MIGHT INCLUDE INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT RE CORDED ANY FINDINGS ON THIS ASPECT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DR ELABORATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN SHORT TERM LOANS ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN PURCHA SES AND SINCE PAYMENTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT, THESE MIGHT HAV E BEEN UTILIZED TOWARDS INVESTMENTS AND NOT MERELY FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS. 14.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING UPON DECISION IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD.(SUP RA) ARGUED THAT BANK CHARGES DID NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT E SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD TURN OVER MORE THAN ` `387/- CRORES. MOREOVER, SHORT TERM FOREIGN CURRE NCY ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 15 LOANS COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENTS IN INDI A. WHILE REFERRING TO DECISIONS IN CIT VS. BOMBAY SAMACHAR LTD,74 ITR 723(BOM.), FOLLO WED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN REGAL THEATRE VS. CIT,225 ITR 205(DEL.), T HE LD.AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TH E BUSINESS AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT,YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME .THE L D. AR, RELYING UPON DECISION IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD.(SUPRA),ARGUED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE INTEREST RELATING TO VEHICLE LEASE, TDS, S ALES TAX AND BANK CHARGES HAVE NO RELATION WITH THE INVESTMENTS WHILE SHORT TERMS CURRENCY LOAN WERE IN THE NATURE OF BUYERS CREDIT AND WERE PAYMENTS TO THE S UPPLIERS FROM WHOM THE IMPORTS WERE MADE AND THUS, WERE NOT RELATED TO THE INVESTMENT,YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME. SIMILARLY, INTEREST ON LOAN TAKEN FR OM CISCO, FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED ASSETS ON THE BASIS OF SALES A ND LEASE BACK AGREEMENT, HAD NO RELATION WITH ANY OF THE INVESTMENTS, YIELDI NG EXEMPT INCOME AND, THEREFORE, PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 14.2 IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT DECI SIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR IN BOMBAY SAMACHAR LTD(SUPRA) ®AL THEATRE(SUPRA) WERE RENDERED PRIOR TO INSERTION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND HAD NO RELE VANCE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN FACT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS NON-SPEAKING, THE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAVING NOT RECORDED ANY FINDINGS IN RELATION TO BANK CHARGES N OR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. 15. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT( A), THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS WERE ` `3,876,245,118/- WHILE EXPENSES RELATING TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT WERE ` `14,707,272/-,YIELDING PROPORTION BETWEEN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AT 0. 39. THUS, AT THE MOST, DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF ` ` 56,845/-. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT NOT MUCH EFFORTS AND TIME WAS REQ UIRED FOR INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DISPUTE THEIR SUBMISSIONS, THE DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRE CT, THE LD. AR ADDED. ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 16 15.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THA T CORRECT PROPORTION COULD BE BETWEEN THE TAXABLE INCOME AND EXEMPT INC OME AND NOT BETWEEN GROSS RECEIPTS AND EXEMPT INCOME. 15.2 IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT EFFORTS IN EARNING INCOME CRYSTALLIZED INTO RECEIPTS AND, THEREFORE, EXPENSES HAVE TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE GROSS EARNING AND NOT TO THE NET INCOME. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE T HROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID AMOUN T OF ` 1,39,83,342/-,INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) OF THE ACT READ WITH R ULE 8D OF I.T. RULES, 1962,WITHOUT EVEN ANALYZING THE NATURE OF THE EXPE NDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING INCOME, WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME.. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO IN ITS LETTER DATED 27.8.2010 THAT ONLY EXP ENDITURE OF 28,380/- I.E SALARY OF SHRI NIRAJ MURARKA, HAD BEEN INCURRED BY IT ,WHICH HAD ANY PROXIMATE CONNECTION TO EARNING OF TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME AND ALL THE INVESTMENTS MADE AS PER DIRECTIVES OF HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. WERE OUT OF TH EIR OWN FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO DISCRETION IN ANY INVESTMENT AVENUE . A PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCESHEET REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTMENTS OF ` 512,670,533/-/- IN MUTUAL FUNDS AS ON 31.3.2007 WH ICH INCREASED TO ` 1,097,154,427/-AS ON 31.3.2008. THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THAT INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND IT HAD NOT DEBITED A NY INTEREST TOWARDS INVESTMENTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER ANALYZING THE DETAILS OF INTEREST, FOUND THAT INTEREST RELATING TO VEHICLE LEASE, TDS, SALES TAX AND BANK CHARGES HAD NO RELATION WITH THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS WHILE SHORT TERMS CURRENCY LOAN WERE IN THE NATURE OF BUYERS C REDIT AND IN FACT, WERE PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM THE IMPORTS WER E MADE . SIMILARLY, INTEREST ON LOAN TAKEN FROM CISCO, FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE P URCHASED ASSETS ON THE BASIS OF SALES AND LEASE BACK AGREEMENT HAD NO RE LATION WITH ANY OF THE INVESTMENTS, YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME.. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RELATION TO INTEREST. HONBLE PUNJA B & HARYANA HIGH COURT ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 17 IN THEIR DECISION IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD.,323 I TR 518 OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A REQUIRES FINDIN G OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 14A CANNOT STAND. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HEL D IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD.(SUPRA) THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITU RE THAT IS IN CONTEMPLATION UNDER SECTION 14A(1) OF THE SAID ACT IS THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR PERTAINING TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE COROLLARY TO THIS IS THAT IF NO EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT I NCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE SAID ACT. SINCE THE R EVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, EVIDENCING THAT BORR OWED FUNDS HAD INDEED BEEN UTILIZED IN MAKING AFORESAID INVESTMENT S NOR PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), DELETING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE A CT IN RELATION TO INTEREST, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFO RE, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THEIR APPEAL FOR THE AY 20 08-09 IS DISMISSED. 17. AS REGARDS GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE ,WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED I N THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WAS ` 14,707,272/- AND AT THE MOST DISALLOWANCE COULD BE ` 56,845/-. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN MAK ING AND MAINTAINING HUGE INVESTMENTS WERE WELL COORDINATED AND WELL INFORMED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, INVOLVING NOT ONLY INPUTS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BUT ALSO IT INVOLVED ACUMEN OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, WHETHER THEY SIT IN SU BSIDIARY COMPANY OR HOLDING COMPANY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD DISALLOWANCE AT ` `44,24,562/- BEING 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS. APP ARENTLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF E XPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF AFORESAID HUGE INVEST MENTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION EVEN WHILE ADMITTING THAT DECISIONS IN REGARD TO INVESTMENTS WERE TAKEN BY THE HOLDING COMPANY. NO SUCH DETAILS OF EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 18 HOLDING COMPANY HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES AND EVEN BEFORE US NOR IT IS INFORMED AS TO HOW SUCH EXPENDITURE H AS BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE BOOKS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY OR THE ASSESSEE. IN AN Y CASE, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE AO IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO RECO RD HIS SATISFACTION WHILE THE LD.CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS NOT S ATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCUR RED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. HONBLE A PEX COURT IN KANTAMANI VENKATA NARAYANA AND SONS V. FIRST ADDL. ITO [1967 ] 63 ITR 638 AND AGAIN IN MALEGAON ELECTRICITY CO. P. LTD. V. CIT [1970] 78 I TR 466 (SC) OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER PARTICULAR ITEMS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR PORTIONS OF DOCUM ENTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT. THE LAW CASTS A DUTY ON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. NOT EV EN A WHISPER HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT RELEVANT ACCOUNTS WE RE PLACED BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO ENABLE THEM TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OBJECT OR PURPOSE OF THE INVESTMENT AFFECTS OPERATI ON OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING TA X FREE INCOME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION BY VIRTUE OF OPERATION OF THE S AID SECTION, AS HELD IN CIT VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,16 TAXMANN.COM 289(KER). 17.1. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GO DREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE ADJUDICATING A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT AND RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES,1962 CONCLUDED THAT RULE 8D, INSERTED W.E.F 24.3.2008 APPLIES ONLY W.E.F AY 2008-09. HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 6.7.2010 IN CIT V. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD.,326 ITR 1, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED THAT FOR ATTRACTING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT THERE HAS TO BE A PROXIMATE CAUSE FOR DISALLOWANCE, WHICH IS ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TAX EXEMPT INCOM E. THE THEORY OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE BETWEEN TAXABLE AND NO N-TAXABLE HAS, IN PRINCIPLE, BEEN NOW WIDENED UNDER SECTION 14A, HONBLE APEX CO URT CONCLUDED. IN ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 19 CHEMINVEST LTD. V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,317ITR(AT)86, SPECIAL BENCH HELD THAT WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN RELATION TO IN COME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, IT HAS TO SUFFER THE DISALLOWANCE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER ANY INCOME IS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT DO NOT ENVISAGE ANY SUCH EXCEPTION. HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A RECENT DECISION DATED 18.11.2011 IN MAXOPP INVES TMENT LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A STIPULATES THAT THE AO SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PR ESCRIBED' AND OF COURSE, THIS DETERMINATION CAN ONLY BE UNDERTAKEN IF THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. . 17.2 AS ALREADY OBSERVED, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DENIED INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM TOTAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WH EN HUGE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN MUTUAL FUNDS & SECURIT IES. IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD.(SUPRA), EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH CLAIM. I N CASE , THE AO IS NOT, ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AND AFTER GIVING THE AS SESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, HE SHALL HAVE TO REJECT THE CLAIM AND STATE THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. HAVIN G DONE SO, THE AO HAS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN REL ATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE SAID AC T, HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED . FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THIS DECISION, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MACHINO PLASTIC LTD IN THEIR DECI SION DATED 28.2.2012 IN ITA NO. 92 OF 2011, RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO, BEING HANDICAPPED BECAUSE OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RELEVANT DETA ILS AND PARTICULARS .IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE AO WAS HANDICAPPED, BECAUSE OF FAILU RE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RELEVANT DETAILS/PARTICULARS AND ACCOUNTS W HILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE IN ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 20 TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. THERE I S NOTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IMPUGNED ORDER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE PLACED THE RELEVANT DETAILS & ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO NOR THESE AUTHORITIES SE EMS TO HAVE UNDERTOOK ANY EXERCISE TO ASCERTAIN THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED IN MANAGING AND SUPERVISING THE AFORESAID HUGE INVESTMENTS IN VARI OUS FUNDS & SECURITIES, OBJECTIVELY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS BUT NATU RAL THAT MANAGEMENT WOULD HAVE SPENT SOME TIME IN TAKING INVESTMENT OR DISINVESTME NT DECISIONS IN VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN EXAM INED AT LENGTH BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT HIS POWERS WERE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO AND ACCORDINGL Y , HE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY, AS MENTIONED IN PARA 6.2 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. HONBLE APEX COURT HELD IN TIN BOX COMPANY VS. CIT,249 ITR 216 THAT O PPORTUNITY BY THE AO IS NOT THE SAME AS GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PLACED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE FOR IT IS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT COU NTS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE, AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE REFERRED TO ABOVE, AFTER ALLOWING S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT W HILE REDECIDING THE ISSUE, THE AO. SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, GI VING REASONS FOR HIS SATISFACTION OR OTHERWISE, AS POINTED OUT BY T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN MAXO PP INVESTMENT LTD (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH A LL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN MANAGI NG AND SUPERVISING THE AFORESAID HUGE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUA L FUNDS & SECURITIES ALONG WITH RELEVANT ACCOUNTS AND CASH FL OW STATEMENT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NOS 1 TO 1.5 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2008-09 ARE DISPOSED OF. ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 21 18. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE AY 2008-09, RELATING TO DEPRECIATION ON ELEVATOR, THE AO RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION ON COST OF ELEVATOR AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED FOR BUI LDING AS AGAINST CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED F OR PLANT AND MACHINERY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF ` `1,31,400/-. 19. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS O F THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 8 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND EVIDENC ES PLACED ON RECORD AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HA S CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ELEVATORS UNDER THE HEAD PLANT AND MACHINERY IS THAT ELEVATORS CAN BE DISMANTLED AND REMOVED TO ANO THER LOCATION. IN THIS REGARD, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVAT IONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS THE FUNCTIONAL AND LOC ATION USAGE WHICH WILLS DETERMINE WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM IS PLANT AND MACHINERY OR NOT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ELEVATORS ARE BEING USED AS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE BUILDING AND THEREFORE, DEPRECIAT ION ON THE SAME CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED AT THE RATE APPLICABLE TO BUILD ING. THE ADDITION OF ` `1,31,400/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOU NT IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 20. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD.AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS. JYOTI LTD.,163 ITR 274(GUJ) & VD TALWAR(DECEASE D) VS. CIT,225 ITR 439(MAD.) WHILE CONTENDING THAT ELEVATORS WERE PAR T OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THUS, ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATES PRESC RIBED FOR PLANT AND MACHINERY AND NOT BUILDING. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUP PORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE I N THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A).AS POINTED OUT B Y THE AO, THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 22 FY 2005-06 CAPITALISED THE OFFICE BUILDING; BUT ELE VATORS WERE CAPITALIZED WITH PLANT AND MACHINERY AND NOT THE OFFICE BUILDING. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT ELEVATORS WERE PART OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST NOR THE LD. AR INFORMED AS TO WH AT WAS THE STATUS OF THEIR CLAIM IN THE AY 2006-07.EVEN IN THE PRECEDING ASSES SMENT YEAR I.E AY 2007-08, DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN FURTHER APPEAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON DECISIONS IN JYOYI LTD.(SUPRA), WHEREIN WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF DEV ELOPMENT REBATE UNDER SECTION 33(1)(A) OF THE ACT, HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE LIFT WAS A MACHINERY OR A MECHANICAL DEVICE FOR TRANSPORTING MEN AND MATERIAL S FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN VD TALWAR(DECEASED) HELD THAT SINCE THE LIFT WAS MOVING UP AND DOWN WIT H THE HELP OF TWISTED STEEL ROPE WITHIN A STRUCTURE, IT CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS A ROPEWAY STRUCTURES-CARRIER ENTITLED TO THE HIGHER RATE OF 15 PER CENT DEPRECIA TION AS PER ENTRY III(II)B(15) OF THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE. APPARENTLY, THE ASSESS EE IS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION SINCE THE INSTALLATION OF LIFT IN THE PRECEDING YEA RS WHILE THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A),HOLDING ELEVATORS AS A PART AND PARCEL OF TH E BUILDING, IN FURTHER APPEAL IN THOSE YEARS AND THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT LIFT COULD BE TREATED AS PART OF BUILDING WAS NEVER EXAMINED IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BEFORE US BY THE LD.AR NOR THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ANY OCCASION TO CONSI DER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THESE DECISIONS. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES ,ESPECIALLY WHEN COMPLETE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISS UE, AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID JUDIC IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND AFTER ANALYZING THE VIEW TAKEN I N THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND OF C OURSE , AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. W ITH THESE ITANNOS.322,2239&2583/D/2012 23 OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NO. 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE AY 2008-09 IS DISPOSED OF. 22. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE AY 2007-08, AND GROUND NO.2 IN THEIR APPEAL FOR THE AY 2008-09 AS A LSO RESIDUARY GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, ALL THESE GRO UNDS ARE DISMISSED. 23.. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 24 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E AY 2008-09 IS DISMISSED WHILE THEIR APPEAL FOR THE AY 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2008-09 IS ALLOWED, BUT BOTH FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1 ASSESSEE 2. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI 3. CIT. CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XXVII & CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT,C BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT