GAGAN TRADING CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(1)-2, MUMBAI

ITA 4088/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8683 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Notional interest
• Section: 14A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. NO.4088/MUM/2010. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07. GAGAN TRADING CO. LTD., ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF JANDAL MANSION, VS. INCOME-TAX- 5(2), 5A, DR. G. DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400026. PAN AAACG1829Q APPELLANT. RESPONDENT . I.T.A. NO. 4657/MUM/2010 ASSESSME NT YEAR : 2006-07. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M/S GAGAN TRADING CO., 5(2), MUMBAI. VS. MUMBAI. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIRO RAI. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI NAVEEN GUP TA. DATE OF HEARING : 12-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -10-2012. O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS, ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING I.T.A. NO. 4088/MUM/2010 AND OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING I.T.A. NO. 4657/MUM/2010 ARE CROSS APPEALS WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-9, MUMBAI DATED 30-03-2010. 2 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 2. THE MAIN COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AS RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND IN THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH H AS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AT RS.1,05,06,720/- AS AGAINST RS.9,84,58,080/- COMPUTED BY THE AO AND RS.7,42,833/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WH ICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 04-11-20 06 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,58,556/-. IT IS THE OWNER OF COMMERCIAL PREMIS ES KNOWN AS JINDAL MANSION, SITUATED AT PEDAR ROAD IN MUMBAI. THE SAID BUILDING IS CONSISTING OF GROUND PLUS FIVE FLOORS WHICH WERE LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO O THER COMPANIES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP. THE AREA SO LET OUT IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION WAS 8700 SQ.FT. TO M/S JINADAL IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., 7500 SQ.FT. TO M/S JINDAL VIJAYNAGAR STEEL LTD. AND 5000 SQ.FT. TO JINDAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. FR OM THE SAID TENANTS, SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.34 CRORES, 30 CRORES AND 14 CRORES WA S COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO RS.78 CRORES FREE OF INTEREST. THE R ENT PAYABLE AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT FROM THE SAID TENANTS WAS RUPEE 1/- PER S Q.FT. PER MONTH. THE TOTAL RENT OF RS.2,54,400 THUS WAS RECEIVED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE TENANTS IN RESPECT OF JINDAL MANSION AND SINCE THE MUNICIPA L RATABLE VALUE OF THE SAID BUILDING AT RS.10,61,190 WAS HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED, INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IS RETURN OF INCOME BY ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. ACC ORDING TO THE AO, INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSITS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TE NANTS WAS LIABLE TO BE ADDED ON NOTIONAL BASIS TO THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE A SSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, ADDED A SUM OF RS.14,04.00,000/- BEING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% ON THE SECURITY DEPOSITS 3 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 OF RS.78 CRORES TO THE TOTAL RENT OF RS.2,54,400/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 24(1) AT 30%, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS COM PUTED BY HIM AT RS.9,84,58,080/- IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 14 3(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 23- 12-2008. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3), A N APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A LARGE AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON THE RENOVATION OF THE P ROPERTY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND FOR THIS PU RPOSE, SECURITY DEPOSITS WERE COLLECTED FROM THE TENANTS OCCUPYING THE SAID PROPE RTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SUCH SECURITY DEPOSITS COULD N OT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INT EREST TO DETERMINE THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE EARLIER YEARS WERE DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS CON TENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEP OSITS, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE DELETED AND INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SAID HEAD BY ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FULLY. ACCORDI NG TO HIM, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTIO NAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINI NG THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RATABLE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES SHOULD B E TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THERE A RE EVIDENCES TO SUGGEST THAT THE 4 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPRESSED DUE TO EXTRANEOUS FACTORS INCLUDING THE RECEIPT OF HUGE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DE POSITS, IT WAS OPEN TO THE AO TO DETERMINE THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKING SUCH FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION AS ARE RELEVANT. HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT BOUND BY THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IF THERE WE RE OTHER EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT RATE AT WHICH PROPERTY COULD BE LET OUT W AS MORE THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. HE, THEREF ORE, DIRECTED THE AO TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE RENT FETCHED BY PROPE RTIES LOCATED IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED B Y HIM FROM THE AO IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE REN T FOR THE SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE ADJACENT AREA WAS IN THE RANGE OF RS.57/- TO R S.59/- PER SQ.FT. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE, THEREFORE, DETERMINED THE ANNU AL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,50,09,600/- BY ADOPTING THE RATE OF RENT AT RS.59/- PER SQ.FT. PER MONTH AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 24(1), HE DETERMINED T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.1,05,06,720/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE BOTH HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED DR HAS MAINLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF FULL BENCH OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. MONI KUMAR SUBBA REPORTED IN 333 ITR 38 IN SUPPORT OF THE REVE NUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE SAID DECISION, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD TH AT THE OPERATIVE WORDS IN SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT ARE THE RENT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THESE WOR DS PROVIDE A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE REVENUE FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR RENT. IT W AS HELD THAT THE AO HAVING REGARD 5 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 TO THIS PROVISION IS EXPECTED TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE RENT THAT THE PROPERTY MIGHT FETCH AND IF HE FINDS THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET RENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN ABNORMAL HIGH INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS LESS THAN THE RENT WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT FETCH, HE CA N UNDERTAKE NECESSARY EXERCISE IN HIS BEHALF. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF RECLAMATION REALITY INDIA LTD. PASSED IN ITA NOS. 1411 TO 1413, 1434 & 1733/MUM/2007 DATED 26- 06-2010 IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE ON THIS ISSUE. HE H AS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CAS E AND A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) MADE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1976-77, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED W AS TREATED TO REPRESENT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PROVIDED IT EXISTS THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YE AR. THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION OF THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE CBDT IN CIR CULAR NO.204 DATED 24-7- 1976 AND AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE SAID CIRCULAR AND AFTER REDUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF IN THIS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF RECLAMATION REALITY INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE POSITION OF LAW PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 23(1)(B) AS CLARIFIED BY THE BOARD ITSELF IS THAT T HE ANNUAL VALUE WAS EQUAL TO THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE TRIBUNAL H ELD THAT THIS IS HOW THE BOARD SOUGHT TO INTERPRET THE EXPRESSION THE SUM FOR WH ICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR US ED IN SECTION 23(1)(A). 7. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE DECISION OF H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DIWAN DAULAT KAPOOR VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE 122 ITR 700 (SC) WHEREIN THE QUESTION THAT HAD ARISEN FOR CONSI DERATION WAS AS TO WHAT SHOULD 6 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 BE THE BASIS OF DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE FOR TH E PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PROPERTY TAX. THE EXPRESSION ANNUAL VALUE AS DEFINED IN TH E DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1957 AND PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT 1911 WAS GROSS A NNUAL RENT AT WHICH SUCH HOUSE OF BUILDING MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO L ET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE IS ALWAYS RENT REALIZABLE BY LANDLORD AND THAT ACTUAL RENT IS ONLY AN INDICATOR WHAT THE LANDLORD MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT TO GET FROM A HYPOTHETICAL TENANT . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE TENANCY IS SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION, STANDARD RENT WOULD BE A PROPER MEASURE AND IN ANY EVENT, ANNUAL VALUE CANNOT EXCEED SUCH STANDARD RENT. 8. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF RECLAMATION REALTY INDIA P. LTD. ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHEILA KAUSHISH VS. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC), WHER EIN THE QUESTION AROSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT AND IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE RATIO OF ITS DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF DEWAN DAULAT RAI KAPOOR (SUPRA) WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN I NTERPRETING THE DEFINITION OF ANNUAL VALUE GIVEN IN SECTION 23(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS HELD THAT THESE DEFINITIONS ARE GIVEN IN IDENTICAL TERMS AND IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH THE DEFINITION OF ANNUAL VALUE GIVEN IN SECTION 2 3(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FROM THE DEFINITION OF THAT TERM GIVEN IN THE DELHI MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1957 AND THE PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT, 1911. IT WAS THEREFORE HE LD ADOPTING IDENTICAL LINE OF REASONING THAT EVEN IF THE STANDARD RENT OF A BUILD ING HAS NOT BEEN FIXED BY THE CONTROLLER, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE BUILDING AS PER SECTION 23(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MUST BE HELD TO BE A STANDARD RENT DETERMINABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT AND NOT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED B Y THE LANDLORD FROM THE TENANT. 7 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 THE HONBLE APEX COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THIS INTE RPRETATION WHICH WAS BEING PLACED ON THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 23(1) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE RECEIVED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL BY THE AMENDMENT MAD E IN THE SAID PROVISIONS WHEREBY IT WAS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23(1)(B) THAT WH ERE THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE SHALL BE DEEMED TO THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 9. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF RECLAMATION REALTY INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) THEN WENT ON TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRABHABATI BANSALI, 141 ITR 4 19 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF DEWAN DAULAT RAI KAPOOR (SUPRA) AND MRS. SHEILA KAUSHISH (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL VALUE OF THE AS SESSEES PROPERTY IN MUMBAI THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY MUST BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUM WHICH MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YE AR AND WITH THE ANNUAL MUNICIPAL VALUE PROVIDED SUCH A VALUE IS NOT ABOVE THE STANDARD RENT RECEIVABLE AND THE SAME COULD BE ADOPTED AS THE SAFEST GUIDE F OR THIS PURPOSE. AS MENTIONED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF RECLAMATION REALTY INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE SAID DECISION WAS RENDERED BY THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT WHEREIN THE MANNER OF DETERMINATION OF RATABLE VALUE WAS LAID DOWN WHICH WAS BASED ON THE ANNUAL RENT FOR WHICH T HE PROPERTY MIGHTY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. TH E HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION AND ANNUAL VALUE U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THUS ARE ONE AND SAME. AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE 8 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 OF RECLAMATION REALTY INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) THE SAI D DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRABHABATI BANSA LI (SUPRA) HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF M.V. SONAVALA VS. CIT 177 ITR 246 (BOM) WHEREIN THE QUES TION POSED TO THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS WHETHER THE ACTUAL COMPENSATION RECEI VED COULD BE TAKEN AS ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL RATA BLE VALUE AND THE SAME WAS ANSWERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE NE GATIVE THAT IS AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN OUR OPINION, THE SIMILAR ISSUE AS INVOLVED I N THE PRESENT CASE THUS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF RECLAMATION REALITY INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) A ND SINCE THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON AND FOLLOW ING THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDICIAL PROPRIETY AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE US TO FOLLOW THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENT, WE MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON T HIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE AS ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED WHEREAS TH E SOLITARY GROUND RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. THE REMAINING GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL INVOLVING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,95,527/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9 ITA NO.4088/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4657/MUM/2010 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF OCT. , 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12 TH OCT., 2012. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, G-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORD ER ASSTT. REGI STRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES , MUMBAI. WAKODE.