ITO 4(1)(2), MUMBAI V. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4587/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1764 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G N SHANBHAG
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 133(6); 92

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI . , ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& , ,, , ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ( ( ( ( BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 4587/MUM./2011 ( '* + ',+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD4(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI .. -. / APPELLANT * V/S M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 120, VARDHAMAN CHAMBERS 17, CAWASJI PATEL STREET, FORT MUMBAI 400 001 .... /0-. / RESPONDENT !- . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAACH1143A 2!' 3 4 / REVENUE BY : MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN '* +5$ 3 4 / ASSESSEE BY : MR. G.N SHANBHAG *' 3 $ / DATE OF HEARING 07.02.2013 % 6, 3 $ / DATE OF ORDER 22.02.2013 % % % % / ORDER #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& , ,, , ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! 7 7 7 7 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE, IS AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14 TH MARCH 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)X, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 2 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200708. 2. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGE D MAINLY THE DELETION OF TWO ADDITIONS BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER (APPEALS), FIRSTLY, DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF ` 14,46,087, PAID TO SIX PERSONS BY THE ASSESSEE AND, SECONDLY, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE S AMOUNTING TO ` 42,374, MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF:- THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF BROKING AND FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES AND INCOME FROM CAPITAL MARKET OPERATIONS FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMMISSION INCOME OF ` 29,62,431. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, NOTED THAT, AS AGAINST THE SAID COMMISSION INCOME EARNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O MADE COMMISSION PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO ` 14,46,087, TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FOLLOWING COMM ISSION PAYMENT TO THE SIX PERSONS. S.NO. NAME OF RECIPIENTS AMOUNT IN ` 1. RIZE ZONE CONSULTING 1,22,788 2. UCLID TECHNOLOGY LTD. 2,97,587 3. HEMDEV FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 1,05,500 4. INDO CASTLE MULTIMEDIA LTD. 5,01,953 5. AARTI GUPTA 2,54,089 6. SOMLATA GUPTA 1,64,170 7. TOTAL 14,46,087 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE EAR LIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, NO SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION P AYMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CARRIED OUT ENQUIRIES WITH ALL THE SIX PERS ONS AND ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. OUT OF SIX PERSONS, TWO PERSONS DID NOT MAKE ANY RESPONSE AND THE REST FOUR OF THEM SUBMITTED THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 3 RETURN OF INCOME AND COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PE R THE TABLE GIVEN AT PAGES-3 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, OBSERVED THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED FOR EARNING THE COMMISSION INCOME AND THE DETAILS OF CLIENTS INTRODUCED HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED AND IN THREE OF T HE CASES, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED. MOREOVER, THE COM MISSION PAYMENT PERTAINING TO THE CURRENT YEAR HAS BEEN PAID IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, SUB MITTED AS UNDER:- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WE WERE APPROACH ED BY NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS TO ASSOCIATE IN THE GROWTH OF BUSINES S, SOME OF THEM CAME FORWARD AND INTRODUCED SOME NEW CONTACTS TO PR OVE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AND POTENTIALS. HOWEVER IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2005-06 WE HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY REVENUE SHARING UNDERTAKING. IT WAS FELT THAT THE ASSOCIATES WOULD PROVIDE A LARGE GROWTH IN THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY, WE DECIDED TO JOIN HANDS FOR A PERIOD OF O NE YEAR I.E., FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 ON REVENUE SHARING BASIS WHICH IN TURN WOULD HELP US TO REDUCE OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND EFFECTIVELY EXPAND OUR BUSINESS. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLA NATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE AGREEMENT, COPIES OF INVOICES SHOWING INVOLVEMENT O F COMMISSION AGENTS OR ANY SORT OF CORRESPONDENCES AND THUS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION PAID OF ` 14,46,087. 6. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DETAILS OF OTHER TWO PARTIES, WHO HAD NOT RESPONDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THEIR DETAILS. FURTHER, DETAIL SUBMISSIONS ALONG WI TH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES INCLUDING BANK STATEMENTS WERE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), AFTER TAKIN G DUE COGNIZANCE OF SUCH EVIDENCES, REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO SUBMIT HIS REMAND REPORT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER S UBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 4 TH FEBRUARY 2011, WHEREIN HE STATED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF TDS RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS, IT W AS FOUND THAT IN SOME CASES THAT TDS CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED AFTER INCLUDING T HE SERVICE TAX WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN COMMISSION INCOME AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 4 TAX HIS MAIN COMMENTS WERE MOSTLY ON ACCOUNT OF TDS ONLY. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE GAVE HIS COUNTER SUBMISSIONS TO EACH A ND EVERY OBSERVATION MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT AND CLARIFIED THE FINDING S AND CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN THIS YEAR WAS MOSTLY ON AC COUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE THERE WAS STAGNATION IN THE BUSINESS AND THERE WAS NO GROWTH IN THE ASSESSEES RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, IT DECIDED THAT SOM E BUSINESS ASSOCIATE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR MOBILIZING THE BUSINESS. AC CORDINGLY, PROBABLE ASSOCIATES WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING T HAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE PAID ONLY ON COMPLETION OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR SO THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE CONTROL OVER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATES. THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO SUCH ASSOCIATES RANGED BETWEEN 55 AND 60%. DUE TO T HIS ASSOCIATION, THEE WAS ENORMOUS GROWTH OF 250% IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THIS KIND OF REVENUE SHARING WITH THE ASSOCIATES WAS ONLY IN ONE YEAR I. E., IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IT HAS PRODUCED GREAT RESULTS IN SUBSEQ UENT YEAR, WHEREIN HUGE VOLUME OF BUSINESS HAS BEEN DONE EVEN WITHOUT THEIR CONTRIBUTION, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOW ABLE TO GET HOLD OF BIG CORPORATE THROUGH THEIR LIAISONING. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC HARGED ITS ONUS BY NOT ONLY PROVIDING ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENC E BUT ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WAS THROUGH BANKING CHANN ELS AND TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED. 7. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ON A PERUSAL OF ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER:- 1.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT ALL THE SIX PERSON OF THE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION HAVE FILED DETAILS REGARDING BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THAT THE A MOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM IS CREDITED IN BANK ACCOUNT, CONFIRMING RECEIP TS, COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THEM, CONTRACT LETTER ISSUED TO THEM AND S IGNED BY THEM AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY PERFORMED BY THEM. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT IS NOT REFLECTED IN BANK ACCOU NT, HOWEVER, THE BANK ACCOUNT REFLECTED NET AMOUNT OF COMMISSION REC EIVED EXCLUDING TDS WHICH THE AO IGNORED TO EXAMINE. THUS THE IDENT ITY OF THE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION, NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERE D AND THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS REFLECTED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PROVED. THEREFORE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE A O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT S DURING THE YEAR. M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 5 THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS, THE DISALL OWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THERE FORE ALLOWED. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION WAS DELETED BY HIM AFTER EXAMINING OF THE EVIDENCE AND VERIFICATION OF THE B ANK ACCOUNT. 8. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELYING UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT PAID MUCH COMMISSION IN THE EARLIER YEARS, HAS PAID A HUGE SUM I.E., TO THE EXTENT OF 55% TO 60% OF THE PAYMENT RECEIVED AS COM MISSION FROM THE OTHER PARTIES. DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE PERSONS OR COU LD FILE THE RELEVANT BANK DETAILS. SHE ALSO REFER TO THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS GIVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT WITHO UT ANY PROPER AGREEMENT, SUCH A HUGE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BECOME S DOUBTFUL. THUS, SHE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SIX PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSAC TIONS AND HAVE DULY SHOWN THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETU RN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE STAGE OF FIRST APPEAL, EVEN THE BANK DETAILS WERE FILED WHICH HAD BEEN DULY CLARIFIED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THE RECONCILIATION OF TDS CERTIFICATES WAS ALSO MADE. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND WAS UNABLE TO INCREASE ITS BUSINESS. THE MANAGEMENT, TH EREFORE, DECIDED TO INVOLVE SOME BUSINESS ASSOCIATES WHO WILL HELP IN P ROCURING PROPER INVESTMENTS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE CORPORATE CLIENTS . AFTER ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, NOT ONLY THE ASSES SEES RECEIPTS HAVE INCREASED BUT ALSO THE INCOME HAS INCREASED. THE PA YMENT OF COMMISSION HAVE BEEN MADE ON SHARING BASIS WHICH WAS GIVEN EIT HER AT THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR OR AFTER THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BY T HE CLIENTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE REFERRED TO THE COMPARATIVE STA TEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND INCOME FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS WHICH WAS PLACED IN T HE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID, TDS DED UCTED ALONG WITH THE TDS M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 6 CERTIFICATES AND THE BANK STATEMENTS FROM THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS LETTERS THROUGH WHICH THESE AS SOCIATES WERE APPOINTED AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE REMARKS ON ALL THESE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, T HE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND HAVE PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, ALL THE SIX PERS ONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS OF T HE PAYMENT, FOUR OF THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TWO OF THEM A T THE STAGE OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). IN SUPPORT OF THIS PAYMENT, LETTERS OF APPOINTMENT, COPIES OF BILLS AND BANK STATEMENT OF THESE PERSONS HAVE DULY BEEN FILED WHICH HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ALL THE PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, AFTER DEDUCTING TDS. NOT MUCH OF ADVERSE I NFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THESE DETAILS FURNISHED. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS THAT THE PAYME NT TO THE PARTIES WERE FOR GENUINE BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND FILED ALL TH E EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT, IDENTITY AND ALSO THEIR INCOME TAX DET AILS, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD, SUCH A PAYMENT CANN OT BE TREATED AS NON- GENUINE. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CATEGORICAL LY NOTED THAT ALL THE SIX PARTIES HAVE FILED THEIR BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND HAVE DULY CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT AND ALSO SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, TH EY HAVE CONDUCTED THEIR ACTIVITIES IN PURSUANCE OF APPOINTMENT LETTER AND H AVE RECEIVED PAYMENT AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM SUCH A FINDING WITHOUT A NY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELETION OF COMMISSION EXP ENSES BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NO. 1, RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS, THUS, DISMISSED. M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 7 11. IN GROUND NO.2, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 15,963, AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHA RES AT ` 5,08,250 AND ALL THESE INCOMES WERE CLAIMED AS EXEM PT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOTTED ANY EXPENDITU RE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THEREFORE, AFTER APPLYING THE WORKING UNDER RULE 8D, DISALLOWED ` 42,374. 13. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS RECEIVED ONLY IN RELATION TO FIVE TRANSA CTIONS AND WAS DIRECTLY CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HENCE, NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. MOREOVER, THE DISALLOWANCE IF AT ALL SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ` 1,534, AS THESE WERE THE BANK / DEMAT CHARGES. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT RULE 8D CANNOT BE APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V/S DCIT, [2010], 3 28 ITR 081 (BOM.). THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8D CANN OT STAND. HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 30,331, AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF ` 42,374, IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 3.3 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, DISALLOWANCE WOULD BE CAL CULATED BY FOLLOWING METHOD: I)DIRECT INTEREST II) INDIRECT INTEREST * AVERAGE INVESTMENT / AVERAGE ASSET = INDIRECT INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A = I+II+V 3.3.1 THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF ` NIL, HENCE SAME WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ` 1,534. AS REGARDS INDIRECT INTEREST EXPENDITURE, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE BANK LOAN HAS BEEN UTI LISED IN PURCHASE OF SHARES AND DEBT SECURITIES OF WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME, HENCE NO INDIRECT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EXEMPT INCOME, THEREFORE, INDIRECT EXPENDITURE BY W AY OF INTEREST WOULD BE CONSIDERED AT ` NIL, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IS MADE AS UNDER: M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 8 DIRECT INTEREST INDIRECT INTEREST AVERAGE INVEST MENT AVERAGE ASSET INDIRECT INTEREST 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVEST MENT DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A 1534 0 5759427 668669 0 28797 30331 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS CONFI RMED AT ` 30,331 AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF ` 42,374 MADE BY THE A.O. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APP EALS). 15. AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF R ULE 8D CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THUS, SOME REASONABLE BASIS SHOULD BE MADE FOR WORKING OF THE DISALLOWANC E. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS), HAS NOT BEEN MUCH DISPUTED BEFORE US. THUS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM SUCH A FINDING, AS THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) HAS ALREADY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 30,331, AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 42,374, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, GROUND NO.2, R AISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. 5 $8 2!' 3 52 3 2$ 9: ; 16. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. % 3 , < = *8 22 ND FEBRUARY 2013 3 > ; ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY 2013 SD/- . .. . ! ! ! ! B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- #$ #$ #$ #$ %& %& %& %& ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, = * = * = * = * DATED: 22 ND FEBRUARY 2013 M/S. HEMDEV SECURITIES (I) PVT. LTD. 9 % 3 /'$#? @?,$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) '* +5$ / THE ASSESSEE; (2) 2!' / THE REVENUE; (3) A () / THE CIT(A); (4) A / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) ?'D> /'$'* , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) >E+ F / GUARD FILE. 0?$ /'$ / TRUE COPY %* / BY ORDER / 2. G / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY '5H '*2 ' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I / 9 2 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI