M/s. The India Thermit Corpn. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3318/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91456 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHENDER JAIN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. GEORGE GEORGE K , JM ITA NO. 3318/DEL/2013 : ASSTT . YEAR : 2009-10 THE INDIA THERMIT CORPN. LTD. B-2/60, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI VS ACIT CIRCLE- 16(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACT7462Q APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHENDER JAIN, CA & SH. SWA RAN SINGH, CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.DAM KANUNJHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.07.2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)- XIX, NEW DELHI. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APP EAL :- (I) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 19, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUST AINING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,22,274/- U/S 1 4A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES,1962. (II) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- 19, NEW DELHI HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 2 SUSTAINING THE UNILATERALLY DONE ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,34,330/- BEING THE OPENING BALANCE OF SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AS ON 01.04.2008. (III) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)- 19, NEW DELHI HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 6,68,958/- CLAIMED AS REVE NUE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PROCESSING FEES, BANK COMMIS SION AND COST OF STAMP PAPER PAID TO BANK FOR AVAILING C REDIT FACILITY FROM BANK. (IV) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)-19, NEW DELHI IS INSUPPORTABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY. (V) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19 NEW DELHI A RE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND IN ANY CASE MUC H TOO HIGH AND EXCESSIVE. (VI) THAT ANY OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS YOUR HONOU R MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , BE GRANTED. 3. VIDE GROUND NO. (1) ; THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSE E RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,22,274/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS THE ACT) READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 15,1,74,169/-, LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 3 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN S HARES/MUTUAL FUNDS/ BONDS ETC. OUT OF THE FUNDS EITHER BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE OR FROM COMPANYS OWN SOURCES. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE YIELDED AN EXEMPTED INCOME OF RS. 55067/- WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. HE THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASS ESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,62,673/- HAD BEEN ADDED U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHICH WAS CALCULAT ED AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE DISA LLOWANCE AT RS. 2,85,699/- AS UNDER :- PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) AMOUNT DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO DIVIDEND INCOME NIL INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO SUCH INCOME 1,22,774/- (AX B/C) (2796270X3,25,85,055 / 742152090) ONE-HALF PERCENT OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT 1,62,925/- (0.5% *3,25,85,055/-) ________ TOTAL QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE 285699/- FOR THE PURPOSES OF ABOVE COMPUTATION, FOLLOWING VA LUES HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; INTEREST EXPENSE DURING AY 2009-10 = RS. 2796270/- AVERAGE INVESTMENT = RS. 3,25,85,055/- AVERAGE TOTAL ASSETS (AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE S HEET)= RS. 742152090/- ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 4 THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE THE FURTHER DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 1,22,274/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- YOUR HUMBLE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THAT AS REGAR DS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,62,925/- MADE BY THE LD. AO U NDER RULE 8D(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 IS CONCER NED THE APPELLANT HAS NO GRIEVANCE AS HE HIMSELF MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WHILE COMPUTING ITS TOTAL INCOME CHARG EABLE TO TAX BUT AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO UNDER RULE 8D(II) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,22,774/-, IT I S REITERATED THAT A) THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WORKED OUT BY THE LD. AO DOES NOT BEAR OUT FROM PAYMENT OF INTEREST AS THE S AME HAS BEEN DERIVED BY TAKING THE AMOUNT PAID ON SUPPLIERS CREDIT FOR PURCHASE OF IMPORTED MACHINERIES AS INTEREST. B) THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS RECEIVED TOTAL INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 96,23,992/- AND PAID RS. 27,96,270 /-. C) THE NET BALANCE OF INTEREST ACCOUNT IS A CREDIT BALANCE AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE IS POSSIBLE D UE TO CREDIT BALANCE. 7. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 2.3 OF THE IMPUGNED AS UNDER : - 2.3 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FA CTS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. RULE 8D(2)(II) DOES NOT MAKE ANY EXCEPTION FOR INTEREST ON SUPPLIERS CREDIT. THE NATURE OF PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST. THE FACT THAT SOME INTEREST HAS BEEN EARNED AND THE NET BALANCE IN THE INTEREST ACCOUNT IS A CREDIT BALANCE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT NO INTEREST ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 5 WAS PAID IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(2)(II). THE APPELLANT S ARGUMENTS ARE THEREFORE, UNACCEPTABLE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS JUSTIFIED AND IS UPHELD. THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWE D FUNDS AND THE EXEMPTED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FOR THE EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 55065/- HAD DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 2,85,699/- WHICH WAS NOT JU STIFIED AND THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LT D. VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 117/2015 ORDER DATED 25.2.2015 (COPY OF THE SAI D ORDER WAS FURNISHED). IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARN ED EXEMPTED INCOME OF RS. 55065/- AND SUO MOTO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 1,62,673/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH DISALLOWED MO RE EXPENSES ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 6 THEN THE INCOME EARNED BUT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT AG GREGATED AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE AO WORKE D OUT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 285699/- AND MADE FU RTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,22,274/- . FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS MUCH MORE THEN THE INCOME EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 10. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER :- BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN SECTION 14A OR RULE 8D BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE TAX EX EMPT INCOME IS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOW ANCE IS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A, AND IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE I N RELATION TO THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME. THIS PROPORTION OR PORT ION OF THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME SURELY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE EXEMPTED INCOME WAS OF RS. 55065/- AND THE ASSESSEE ITSELF MADE THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 1,62,673/- HOWEVER, THE AO MADE FURTHER DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 1,22,274/-. THEREFORE, THE TAX EXEMPTED INCOME SWAL LOWED MORE THEN THE ENTIRE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH IS NOT PERMISSI BLE AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 IN ITA NO. 117/2015 IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 7 DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AN D SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES T O THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,34,313/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUN T OF OPENING BALANCE OF SUSPENSE ACCOUNT. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS. 2,34,3 30/- UNDER THE NARRATION SUSPENSE CODE 2530. THE AO ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO FILE THE DETAIL FOR THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE AO, NO E VIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS BALANCE WAS BEING CA RRIED FORWARD MUCH PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-2001 AND THER EFORE THE SAME DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL Y EARS 2001-02 TO 2008-09 AND STATED THAT THE BALANCE UNDER THE HEAD SUSPENSE ACCOUNT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2008. THEREFORE THE SAME DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE F.Y. 2008 -09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ACCORDINGLY A REQUE ST WAS MADE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION ARBITRARILY M ADE BY THE AO. ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 8 14. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD POINTED OUT THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE LIABILITY CONTINUED TO EXIST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT THE SAID ONUS HAD NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. HE THEREFORE , CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS AN OPENING BALANCE, SO IT DID N OT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND EVEN THE LIABILITY DID NOT CEASE AND WAS VERY MUCH INEXISTENCE THEREFORE, THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT S TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS AN OPENING BALANCE AND THERE WA S NO CESSATION OF LIABILITIES, WERE FURNISHED BEFORE T HE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THIS LIA BILITY CEASED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WAS TO BE ADDED U/ S 41(1) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLEAR FAC TS ON THE RECORD, ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 9 DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. 17. THE LAST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,68,958/-. THE FACTS RELATED T O THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN BUYERS CREDIT L IMIT OF RS. 6 CRORE FROM BANK OF BARODA FOR PURCHASE OF FLASH BUTT MACH INE. HE THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RELEVA NT DETAILS AND WHILE GOING THROUGH THOSE DETAILS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAID CREDIT LIMIT WAS TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE EXPENDITURE RE LATING TO LOAN IN RESPECT OF BUYER CREDIT LIMIT OF FLASH BUTT MACHINE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 4,13,625/- WAS PAID FOR PROCESSING FEE OF THE LOAN RS. 2,99,572/- WERE DEBITED ON ACCOUT OF BANK COMMISSIO N AND RS. 10,000/- FOR STAMP PAPER. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THOSE EXPENSES AS CAPITA L IN NATURE AND AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 7.5 % AM OUNTING TO RS. 54,239/-, DISALLOWED THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 6,68,958/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 10 4.2 THE APPELLANT COMPANY EXPLAINED BEFORE T HE LD. A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT T HE NATURE OF PROCESSING FEES PAID BY THE APPELLANT COM PANY TO THE BANK IS NOT INTEREST BUT IS A SERVICE CHARGE FOR APPRAISAL OF CREDIT FACILITY. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ARE A) THE APPELLANT COMPANY MADE A PURCHASE ARRANGEMENT WITH M/S HOLAND, L.P. FOR PURCHASE OF F LASH BUTT MACHINES AGAINST BUYERS CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS. B) THE AFORESAID FOREIGN PARTY INSISTED ON APPRAISAL OF CREDITWORTHINESS BY THE BANK AND ISSUANCE OF LETTER OF CREDIT ETC., THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT COMPANY ARRAN GED THE SAME THROUGH ITS BANKERS (BANK OF BARODA) AND ISSUE LETTER OF CREDIT WORTH RS. 6.00 CRORES. C) THE BANKERS CHARGED PROCESSING FEES FOR APPRAISAL OF CREDITWORTHINESS AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,68,958/- WHICH CONSISTS OF FOLLOWING :- PROCESSING FEES RS. 4,13,652.00 BANK COMMISSION RS. 2,99,572.00 COST OF STAMP PAPER RS. 10,000.00 TOTAL RS. 7,23,197.00 THE LD. A.O. TREATED THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS . 7,23,197/- AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED TH E SAME BUT ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 7.5% ON THE SAME AMOUNT AT RS. 54,239/- AND THUS NET AMOUNT OF RS. 6,68,958/- WAS DISALLOWED. 19. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS CAPITAL IN N ATURE AND AO HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE WAS JUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 11 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 20. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE EXPENSES UNDER COSNDIERATION WERE RELATED TO THE RE NEWAL OF CASH CREDIT LIMITS AND INCLUDED PROCESS CHARGES, SO, TH OSE WERE NOT RELATED TO THE ACQUIRING OF NEW ASSET. OUR ATTENTION WAS DR AWN TOWARDS PAGE NO. 33 AND 34 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND IT W AS STATED THAT THE MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED ON 6 TH MARCH, 2007, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND ACQUIRING OF THE ASSESTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE PAGE NO. 34 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPE R BOOK WHICH REVEALS THAT THE MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN EARLIER YEAR ON 6.3.2007 WAS NOT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE EXPEN SES INCURRED WERE RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF CREDIT LIMIT OF RS. 600 LACS WHICH WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR THOSE WERE RELATING TO FRES H LOAN FOR ACQUIRING A NEW ASSET. WE THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLE AR FACTS AND RELEVANT DETAILS, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND TH IS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH, INACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 12 PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JULY, 2015.) SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 28 TH JULY, 2015 BINITA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT (ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, I TAT N. DELHI ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 13 ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 14 ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 15 ITA NO. 3318.D.2013 16