ITO 5(2)(2), MUMBAI V. JANUS INVESTMENT P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5057/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 505719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK SURI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY N KAP ADIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Notional interest
• Section: 68; 6; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, VKBZ VKBZ VKBZ VKBZ INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - I BENCH. .. , ! , BEFORE S/SH.I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.5057/MUM/2010, ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 ITO 5(2)(2) R.NO. 567, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS M/S JANUS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. MADGAONKAR HOUSE, 17 MATHEW ROAD, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400004 PAN: AAACJ1252E ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) ( ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK SURI '*+ '*+ '*+ '*+ ) ) ) ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY N.KAPADIA ' ' ' ' ( (( ( +, +, +, +, / DATE OF HEARING : 09-04-2014 -.# ( +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-04-2014 ' ' ' ' , 1961 ( (( ( 254 )1( +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ 0 0 0 0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.09.04.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-9 ,MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAD RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW WHETHER THE LD. C.I.T(A)WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE SEC URITY DEPOSIT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ARRIVING AT ANNUAL LETTING VALUE FOR COMPUTING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 2.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) WAS RIGHT ALLOWING DEDUCTION FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF 1/5 TH OF ACCUMULATED INTEREST OF RS. 63,86,544/- ON LOAN TAKEN TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING COMPRISING OF MANY FIATS WHICH WERE NOT SELF OCCUPIED BUT WERE GIVEN ON LEASE 3.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. OF RS. 2,94,5 0,708/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PRO VING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON WHO HAD INTRODUCED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.2, 94,50,708/.. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY G ROUND OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING OF PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/10/2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT, ON 30.12.2009,DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,71,93,590/-. 2.1. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TREATMENT TO BE GIV EN TO NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS JAIN TOWER AT GIRGAON,MU MBAI,THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN LET OUT TO 2 ITA NO.5057/MUM/2010 M/S JANUS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 22 TENANTS,THAT IT COLLECTED TOTAL RENT,AMOUNTING T O RS. L,08,06,000/-FROM THE TENANTS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO COLLECTED RS.1,06,83,000/-AS SECU RITY,DEPOSITS FROM THE TENANTS,THAT THE RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,AS DETERMINED BY MUNICIPAL AU THORITIES,WAS RS. 15,91,465/-,THAT IN THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY AT LOSS OF RS 58,66,542/-, THAT THE RENT CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VARYING FROM TENANT TO TENANT.THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MUCH MORE THAN TH E ACTUAL RENT COLLECTED BY IT. AO CALLED FOR EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING T HE SAME,HE HELD THAT THE FAIR RENT, WHICH THE PROPERTY COULD FETCH WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY,THAT MUNICIPAL VALUATION WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS FOR DETE RMINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,BUT IT WAS NOT THE CONCLUSIVE FACTOR.HE ES TIMATED FAIR RENT OF THE PROPERTY AT THE RATE OF RS 90 PER SQ.FT.PER MONTH.HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD ALSO DERIVED BENEFIT BY RECEIVING INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS.BY TAKING THESE FACTORS INTO CONSIDER ATION,HE DETERMINED THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,96,59 900/-. 2.2. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA)ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD ADDED AN AMOUNT RS.10,68,300/-;BEING THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECUR ITY DEPOSITS;TO ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR,THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS COULD N OT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,FAA HELD THAT THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY ADDING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSITS,THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT,ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WAS THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR REASONABLE RENT FOR WHICH PROPERTY WAS EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, WHICHEVER WA S MORE,THAT THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THE REASO NABLE RENT OF THE PROPERTY WAS MORE THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED,THAT ONLY ON SUCH BASIS IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED WAS LESS THAN THE REASONABLE RENT.REFERRING TO THE DECISIONS OF THE I TAT MUMBAI DELIVERED IN THE CASES OF MAKRUPA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,(108 ITD 95) AND INVESTME NT & TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED(1SOT150),HE HELD THAT NOTIONAL RENT ON SECU RITY DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE ADDED TO ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED TO DETERMINE THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.FINALLY,THE ACTION OF THE AO;IN ADDING RS.10,68,000/-TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCLUDE THE NOTIONAL INTEREST INCOME FOR COMPUTING THE INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME; WAS REVERSED BY HIM. 2.3. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO AND STATTED THAT THE RENT WAS MUCH MORE THAN RENT SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE IN ITS RETURN.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)SUBMITTED THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DETERM - INING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.HE R ELIED UPON THE CASES OF MONISHA R JAISING (21TAXMANN.COM.9), SATYA CO.LTD.(75TAXMAN193),MONI KUMAR SUBBA(10TAXMANN. COM. 195). 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT ISSUE OF NOTIONAL INTEREST FOR COMPUTING HOUSE PROPERTY INCO ME HAS BEEN DELIBERATED UPON AND DECIDED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUMS AND COURTS OF THE VIEW THAT SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE.WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF MO NI KUMAR SUBBA(SUPRA) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: WHERE CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 23(1) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 IS APPLICABLE, I.E., IN CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY IS NOT LET AT ALL DURING THE ENTIRE YE AR, THE EXERCISE IS TO BE DONE TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE RENT WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT FET CH IF LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THAT IS, THE FAIR RENT 3 ITA NO.5057/MUM/2010 M/S JANUS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. WHICH THE PROPERTY CAN FETCH, IF LET, IS TO BE ARRI VED AT. EVEN WHILE ASCERTAINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 23( 1), IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE FAIR RENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (A). THE ACTUAL RENT AT WHICH THE P ROPERTY HAD BEEN LET IS TO BE COMPARED WITH THE FAIR RENT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY B E EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE HIGHER OF THE TWO IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL LETT ING VALUE. IF THE RENT ACTUALLY RECEIVED IS MORE THAN THAT, THAT SUM SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THE PROPERTY CAN REASONABL Y BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THE AMOUNT DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (A) SHALL BE THE INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE OPERATIVE WORDS IN SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT ARE 'THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR' . THESE WORDS PROVIDE A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE REVENUE FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR RENT. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THIS PROVISION IS EXPECTED TO MAKE AN INQUIRY AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE RENT THAT THE PROPERTY MIGHT FETCH. THUS, IF HE FINDS THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS LESS THAN THE FAIR/MARKET RENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN ABNORMALLY HIGH INTEREST-FREE SECUR ITY DEPOSIT AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS LESS THAN THE RENT WHICH THE PROPERTY M IGHT FETCH, HE CAN UNDERTAKE NECESSARY EXERCISE IN THAT BEHALF. HOWEVER, THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON T HE INTEREST-FREE SECURITY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR TO ARRIVE AT A FAIR RENT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) DO NOT MANDATE THIS. IN A TAXING STATUTE IT WOULD BE UNSAFE FOR THE COUR T TO GO BEYOND THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND TRY TO REA D INTO THE PROVISION MORE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY PROVID ED FOR. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE GROUND NO .1 AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ALLOWING 1/5 TH OF ACCUMULATED INTEREST;OF RS. 63.86 LAKHS ON LOAN TAKEN TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING;WHILE COMPUTIN G THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT WHILE COMPUTIN G THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS 63,86,544/-;WH ICH WAS 1/5TH OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES ON BORROWED CAPITAL;RELATING TO THE PERIOD UP TO THE D ATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDI - NG,THAT THE PROPERTY, WHICH IT HAD GIVEN ON RENT WA S SHOWN AS STOCK-IN-TRADE DURING THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION.AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN IF THE SA ID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON RENT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO 1/5TH OF INTEREST EXPENSES ACCUMULA TED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. BEFORE HIM,IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER TREATED THE PR OPERTY AS BUSINESS ASSEST,THAT THE PAST RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE PROVED THE SAME,THAT IN EARLIER YEAR I NTEREST WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY AS STOCK IN TRADE WAS FACTUALLY CORRECT,THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE INTE REST PAYEMNT WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT,THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ,THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.24 OF THE ACT. 3.2. BEFORE US,DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR SUBMI TTED THAT INTEREST PAYMENT WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER AY.,THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER TREATED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS STOCK IN TRADE.ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION,AR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE SUCH AN AVERMENT. 4 ITA NO.5057/MUM/2010 M/S JANUS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. WE FIND THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ALSO ASSESSE E HAS NOT MADE A CLAIM THAT IT HAD NOT MADE A CLAIM ABOUT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER ANY OTHE R HEAD.FAA HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN THIS REGARD.AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT,INTEREST PAYMENT CAN BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY,IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE A CLAIM ABOUT THE SAME UNDER OTHER SECTIONS OF THE AC T.AS THE FAA HAS NOT VERIFIED THIS VITAL FACT,SO,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,WE ARE REMANDING BACK THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION.GROUND NO.2 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E AO,IN PART. 4. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITIO N,MADE BY THE AO OF RS.2,94,50,708/-,ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT.DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS- EE HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING T O RS.2.94 CRORES IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2007,THAT GAUTAM JAIN,SON OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY,HAD APPLIED FOR SHARES OF THE COMPANY.ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF GAUTAM JAIN ALONG WITH HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND FILED AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SAID TRANSACTION .AFTERE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS -IONS OF THE ASSESSEE,AO HELD THAT EXCEPT FURNISHING COPY OF PAS SPORT OF GAUTAM JAIN ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE SOUR CES OF FUNDS INTRODUCED BY HIM,THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE FUNDS THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL,YET SAME WAS NOT A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE,THA T THE ENTRIES IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 03/03/2007 SHOEWE TRANSFER ENTRIES FROM THE ACCOUNT OF GAUTAM JAIN STATED TO BE FROM THE NRE A/C. WITH ING VYSA BANK,THAT DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE BASIC CONDITIONS ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT.FINALLY,HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE REGARDING THE IDENTITY O F THE PERSON,GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSON CONTRIBUTING MONEY AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF ACT. 4.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GUATAM JAIN WAS A NON-RESIDENT-INDIAN,THAT NECESSARY DOCU - MENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO.AFTER CONSIDERING TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF SHARE APPLICANT BY FILING PHOTOCOPIES OF PASSPORT AND ALSO BY FILING COPIES O F HIS BANK ACCOUNT,THAT IT HAD ALSO FILED DETAILS OF HOW IT RECEIVED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY,THAT GAUTAM JAIN WAS SON OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WAS NON-RESIDENT,THAT HE RECEI VED THE MONEY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05,THAT IF ANY ADDITION COULD BE MADE IT WAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF GAUTAM JAIN AND IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXPECTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE SHAREHOLDER.REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBL E PATNA HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SAROJ CREDIT CORPORATION(103ITR344),FAA DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO,U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4.2. BEFORE US,DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR OVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION,THAT MER E FURNISHING OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NON-R ESIDENT INDIAN,THAT HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIA,THAT ALL NECESSARY DOCUME NTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO.ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF GAUTAM JAIN WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION,HE ADMITTED THAT SAME WAS N OT FILED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,BU T THE MOST IMPORTANT AND VITAL DOCUMENT A 5 ITA NO.5057/MUM/2010 M/S JANUS INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS NOT PRODUCED BY IT BEFORE T HE AO/FAA OR US.IN ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION BY THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE INVESTMENT MADE WE ARE N OT IN A POSITION TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE FAA.WE FIND THAT ISSUE UNDER APPEAL NEEDS FURTHER V ERIFICATION.THEREFORE,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WOULD BE FREE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM.GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED,IN PART,IN FAVOUR OF THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL F ILED BY THE AO STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 1+2 '*+ VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH ( 0 3 4 ( + 56. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH APRIL,2014 . 0 ( -.# 7 8' 9 &6 ,201 4 . ( / 9 SD/- SD/- ( .. / I.P. BANSAL) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8' /DATE: 09.04 . 2014. SK 0 0 0 0 ( (( ( &+: &+: &+: &+: ; :#+ ; :#+ ; :#+ ; :#+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / :>/ &+' , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / 1 ':+ ':+ ':+ ':+ &+ &+&+ &+ //TRUE COPY// 0' / BY ORDER, ? / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI