M/s. Thermotech Engineering, Pune V. ACIT, Circle-8, Pune

ITA 533/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0974 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TYAGI; ABHAY GUNDECHA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KED IA , AM ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 M/S THERMOTECH ENGINEERING, BLOCK F - 11, M.I.D.C., NEAR TELCO MATERIAL GATE, PIMPRI, PUNE 411 018. PAN : AABFT0510H . APPELLANT VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 8 , PUNE . . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. K. TYAGI & SHRI ABHAY GUNDECHA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 22 .0 9 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30. 1 0.2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - V , PUNE DATED 07.11.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 . 2 . THROUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1, WHICH READS AS UNDER : - 2 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DELETIN G THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11,40,553/ - 3. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN DESIGNING, MANUFACTURING AND SUPP LY OF REACTORS, PRESSURE VESSELS, AGITATORS, TANKS, ETC.. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.24,18,535/ - I.E. THE DIVIDEND ON MUTUAL FUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO N OTED THAT IN FORM NO.3CD OF AUDIT REPORT IN PARA 1 7(1), THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NIL AMOUNT AS AMOUNT INADMISSIBLE AS A DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THIS REGARD, ISSUED THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 21.07.2011 PARTICU LARLY PARA 25 THEREOF AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX - FREE INCOME AND ALSO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN REPLY, VIDE LETTER DATED 05.12.2011, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD REPLY, VIDE LETTER DATED 05.12.2011, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD INVESTED RS.3.25 CRORES IN MUTUAL FUNDS DURING FEBRUARY, 2008 FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUN D OUT OF PROCEEDINGS OF REDEMPTION, DIVIDEND RE - INVESTMENT AND ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT FROM ACCUMULATED BALANCES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) WERE NOT APPLICABLE, SINCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT COST TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT ONLY DIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING INCOME WOULD BE COVERED BY SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED ANY DIRECT EXPENSES, IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE MAJOR CHUNK OF THE INTEREST DEBITED RELATED TO PARTNERS CAPITAL I.E. INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.36,42,957/ - OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.37,06,006/ - . AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET, THE 3 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT TOTALED TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,61,70,539/ - . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT BECOMES EVIDENT FROM THIS FACT ALONE THAT PARTNERS CAPITAL A CCOUNT BEING INTEREST BEARING ONE, ANY SURPLUS OUT OF THE PROFITS BECAME AN INTEREST BEARING AMOUNT AS F A R AS THE FIRM WA S CONCERNED. THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY DIFFERENT HAD PARTNERS CAPITAL NOT ATTRACTED ANY INTEREST. THEREFORE, EVERY INVES TMENT WHETHER TAXABLE OR NOT, WHETHER USED FOR BUSINESS OR OTHERWISE FROM THE SURPLUS FUND WOULD DIRECTLY ATTRACT INTEREST LIABILITY SINCE SUCH SURPLUS FUND OUT OF PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS BECOMES PARTNERS CAPITAL. HENCE IN THIS CASE THERE WA S A DIRECT NE XUS BETWEEN FUND EMPLOYED FOR EARNING TAX - FREE INTEREST INCOME AND THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST DUE ON SUCH FUNDS. CLEARLY THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON WE RE OF NO HEL P IN THE CASE , SINCE THE FACTS IN THIS CASE WE RE EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO THAT PREVAILED IN THE CASE CI TED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WA S NO NEXUS BETWEEN TAX - FREE INCOME EARNED AND INVESTMENTS MADE THEREIN IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IN ITS CASE AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES BY TAKING THE AVERAGE OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT AND AVERAGE OF TOTAL ASSETS AND ALSO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BOTH UNDER RULE 8 D( II ) AND 8D( III ) OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.11,40,553/ - . 4 . THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PARTNERS CAPITAL WAS INVESTED IN DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK AS PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE AND THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WAS OUT OF SURPLUS FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE FIRM AND ALSO THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT AND MUTUAL FUND AND MONEY BORROWED FROM PARTNERS AS CAPITAL AND HENCE THE RE WAS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE COMMON POOL OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BOTH WE RE INTEREST BEARING AS 4 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 WELL AS INTEREST - FREE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT NO INTEREST BEARING FUND S WERE UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND S WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S LAKSHMI RING TRAVELLERS VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2083(MAD)/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 339 ITR 632 (BOM) WAS HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT HAD NOT ADMITTED THE APPEAL OBSERVING THAT THE ISSUE HAD ARISEN OUT OF QUESTION OF FACT. FURTHER, RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. REPORTED IN 3 13 ITR 340 (BOM) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, SINCE THE SAID DECISION WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), THUS, UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.11,40,553/ - UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8 D OF THE RULES. OF THE RULES. 5 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HAD ALSO MADE ORAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.24,18,535/ - ON AN INVESTMENT MADE IN MUTUAL FUND UNITS, WHICH IN TURN W AS IN AUTOMATIC DIVIDEND REINVESTED PLAN. THE CASE OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT SINCE NO CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN EARNING THE AFORESAID DIVIDEND INCOME , NO DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT . FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT OF RS.3.25 CRORES WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND A SUM OF RS.1.30 CRORES WAS INVESTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, MAKING TOTAL 5 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 INVESTMENT AT RS.4.55 CRORES. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SUMMARY OF SOURCES AND UTILIZATION OF FUNDS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NON - IN TEREST BEARING FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,29,39,131/ - , WHEREAS THE INVESTMENT IN THE MUTUAL FUND WAS ONLY RS.4.55 CRORES. THE NEXT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT WHERE INTEREST - FREE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE THEN NO DISALLOWANCES WAS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT RECORDING A S ATISFACTION HA D EXERCISED THE OPTION UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. REPORTED IN (2014) 107 DTR 140 (BOM ) AND CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. REPORTED IN (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. REPORTED IN (2010) 323 ITR 518 HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. REPORTED IN (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H). IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RELIANCE OF CIT(A) ON THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S LAKSHMI RING TRAVELLERS VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WAS INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE FU NDS ARE MIXED AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED , BUT THIS THEORY OF MIXED FUNDS HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CANARA BANK VS. ACIT (2014) 99 DTR 36 (KARN) . 7 . THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN QUANTIFIED UNDER RULE 8D( II ) AND 8D( III ) OF THE RULES . T HE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE INCURRED ANY DIRECT EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(I) OF THE RULES, BUT THE DISALLOWANCE WA S WARRANTED IN VIEW OF PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL 6 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE FIRM WAS PAYING INTEREST ON THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNER S WHICH MONEY WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT IN M UTUAL FUND , INTEREST RELATABLE TO SUCH INVESTMENT WAS DISALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THEORY OF NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS , OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES AND ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS HA D NO BASIS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE ESTABLISHING THE UTILIZATION OF FUNDS, THERE WA S NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES, WHEREIN IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR OF INCOME IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE. SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO PARA 3.2 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT AFTER NOTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISALLOWED NIL EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE HAD DISALLOWED NIL EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SHOW - CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED . 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 1 4A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, SHALL BE DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER IV. UNDER SECTION 14A( 2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD PRESCRIBED, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFI ED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE INCOME. UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RULES, 7 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 THE METHOD IS PRESCRIBED FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. RULE 8 D(2)(I) OF THE RULES TALKS OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATING TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, IS TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER CHAPTER IV. FURTHER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES TALKS OF WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE , BY WAY OF INTEREST, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE WORKED OUT AS PER THE FORMULA PROVIDED THEREIN. FURTHER, UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES, THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO ONE HALF PERCENT OF THE AVERAGE OF VALUE OF INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARING ON THE FIRST AND LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN THE BALANCE SHEET, IS TO BE DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO INCOME NOT INCLUDABLE IN TOTAL INCOME. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF THE ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE SAID SE CTION READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF SAID SE CTION READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD NOT DISALLOWED ANY EXPENDITURE BEING RELATABLE TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED FROM MUTUAL FUND S TOTALING RS. 24,18,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.11,657/ - BEING INTEREST PAID TO UNION BANK OF INDIA CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT. THE BORROWING WAS CLAIMED TOWARDS WORKING CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.51,392/ - AGAINST THE VEHICLE LOAN. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAD FURTHER INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT TOTALING RS. 36,42,957/ - . WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS .4.5 C RORES, TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT INVESTMENT OF RS.3.25 CRORES IN MUTUAL FUNDS WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FEBRUARY, 2008. FURTHER, SUM OF RS.1.30 CRORES WAS INVESTED ON 17.09.2009. THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF PROCEEDINGS OF REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS , DIVIDEND RE - INVESTMENT AND SOME ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT FROM THE ACCUMULATED BALANCES. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER, THE 8 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 ASSESSEE HAD EARNED DIVIDEND FROM THE AFORESAID MUTUAL FUNDS TOTALING RS.24,14,000/ - . 9. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTS THA T IN PARA 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE INCOME OF RS. 24,18,535/ - BEING DIVIDEND ON MUTUAL FUNDS RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 3.1 AT PAGES 2 AND 3 NOTED THAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED IN FORM NO.3CD, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NIL AMOUNT AS INADMISSIBLE AS A DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 21.07.2011 TO THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE PARA 25, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQU IRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME AND ALSO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.3.25 CRORES IN M UTUAL FUNDS WAS MADE DURING FEBRUARY, 2008 AND IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 , INVESTMENT OF RS.1.30 CRORES WAS MADE . THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF PROCEEDINGS OF REDEMPTION DIVIDEND RE - INVESTMENT, ETC. AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AN D RULE 8D OF THE RULES WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE, SINCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT COST TO EARN EXEMPTED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON SERIES OF DECISIONS AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE RULES WAS FURNISHED ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 09.10.2011. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NIL AMOUNT AS THE AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ESTABLISHES THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED IMPLICIT SATISFACTION BEFORE WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT . I N TERMS OF SECTION 14A(2), WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THE 9 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 10. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE I.E. WHETHER ANY AMOUNT IS DISALLOWABLE AS BEING EXPENDITURE RELATAB LE TO EARNING OF INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO DIRECT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES WERE NOT APPLIC ABLE. AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) OF THE RULES, IN CASE ANY DIRECT EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED WHICH IS RELATABLE TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THEN SUCH EXPENDITURE IS TO BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVE R, THE PERUSAL OF WORKING OF THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTS THAT NO EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,40,553/ - HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND (III) OF THE RULES , RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND AS PER THE TERMS OF PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS PAYING INTEREST ON THE CAPITAL BALANCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008 IS PLACED AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK , WHICH SHOWS CLOSING BALANCE OF THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AT RS. 3,60,49,025/ - . THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 IS PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSETS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARE AS UNDER: - FIXED ASSETS RS.52.57 LAKHS INVESTMENTS RS.470.11 LAKHS SUNDRY DEBTORS RS.208.38 LAKHS S TOCK - IN - TRADE RS.62.93 LAKHS CASH & BANK BALANCE RS.162.31 LAKHS DEPOSITS RS.229.18 LAKHS MARGIN MONEY RS.242.08 LAKHS BALANCE WITH EXCISE DEPT. RS.13.14 LAKHS BALANCE WITH MVAT DEPT. RS.16.93 LAKHS ADVANCE TO TEPPL RS.60.08 LAKHS 10 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 AS AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ASSETS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2009 , THE LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS RS.461.70 LAKHS SECURED LOANS RS.29.61 LAKHS SUNDRY CREDITORS RS.952.54 LAKHS ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS RS.71.78 LAKHS OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES RS.0.50 LAKHS 11. ON COMPARISON OF THE ASSETS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LIABILITIES OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, I T TRANSPIRES THAT IN CASE THE ASSETS, LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THE LIABILITIES RELATING TO CARRYING ON OF T HE BUSINESS ARE SEGREGATED, THEN THE SAME BALANCE EACH OTHER LEAVING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS AT RS. 461. 70 LAKHS AS LIABILITIES ON ONE HAND AND THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 470.11 LAKHS ON THE OTHER. HOWEVER, REPEATED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE AFORESAID NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS . THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE ON ACC OUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TOTALING RS. 952.54 LAKHS AND ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AT RS.71.78 LAKHS. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ON ONE HAND, THERE WAS SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS SUN DRY DEBTORS AT RS. 208.38 OUTSTANDING AND ALSO THERE WAS DEPOSIT OF RS.229.18 LAKHS AND MARGIN MONEY OF RS. 242.08, BESIDES OTHER INVESTMENT AND THE FIXED ASSETS. THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE A COMMON POOL OF FUNDS, WHICH INCLUDED BOTH THE INT EREST BEARING AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS, INCOME FROM WHICH IS NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES ON WHICH, NO INTEREST EXPENDITU RE WAS INCURRED AND WHERE THE INVESTMENT IS FROM A COMMON POOL OF FUNDS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. THE 11 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 BUSINESS FUNDS I.E. IN THE FORM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE AS SESSEE FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE ASSESSEES PROFIT RESERVES OR ITS SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS, DID NOT BEAR ANY BURDEN OF INTEREST, THEN THE SAME COULD BE SAID TO BE A VAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS OTHER THAN FROM COMMON POOL OF FUNDS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED AND ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS TO BE MADE AS PER THE SUB - RULE 2(II) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPT. IN VIEW OF CLEAR - CUT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN MADE FROM COMMON POOL OF FUNDS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT IN THE FORM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS. THE AVAILABLE WITH IT IN THE FORM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS. THE SAID LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATABLE TO ITS BUSINESS AND EVEN THE INVESTMENTS IN THE ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE SQUARELY BALANCE AND WHER E THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST ON THE CAPITAL BALANCE OF THE PARTNERS TOTALING RS.4.61 CRORES AND THE INVESTMENT ON THE OTHER HAND BEING RS.4.55 CRORES ALONG WITH INTEREST, THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT BY THE CIT(A) MERITS TO BE UPHELD. 12. THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD TIME AND AGAIN DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUMMARY OF SOURCES AND UTILIZATION OF FUNDS AS PER AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEARS ENDING 31.03.2007, 31.03.2008 AND 31.03.2009 PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BO OK. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD TWO KINDS OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT I.E. INTEREST BEARING AND NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE 12 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 ASSESSEE THAT FOR CERTAIN FUNDS I.E. INTEREST BEARING WERE UTILIZED FOR EARNING TAXABLE INCOME, WHICH PARTLY WAS FUNDED FROM THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND PARTLY FROM NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS I.E. THE INVESTMENT IN THE FIXED ASSETS AND MA RGIN MONEY WITH THE BANKS. WITH REGARD TO BALANCE INVESTMENTS I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND ALSO IN ITS BUSINESS CURRENT ASSETS I.E. SUNDRY DEBTORS, STOCK IN TRADE, ADVANCES TO EMPLOYEES, BALANCE WITH THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT, BALANCE WITH MVAT DEPARTM ENT, CASH IN BALANCE BALANCES, ETC., AS PER THE ASSESSEE WERE UTILIZED FOR THE REMAINING NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IT WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE SAID BIFURCATION. THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE DETAILS ON PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WERE RE - DRAFTED BALANCE SHEET PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENTS OR THE MOVEMENT OF FUNDS BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID RE - DRAFTED BALANCE SHEET. AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, AFORESAID RE - DRAFTED BALANCE SHEET. AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, IT IS INCOMPREHENSIVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE BU SINESS FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF SO - CALLED SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS . T HE BUSINESS FUNDS BEING AVAILABLE IN A COMMON POOL OF FUNDS, WHICH WERE FOR BOTH INTEREST BEARING AND NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND IN THE ABSENC E OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS BEING AVAILABLE WITH IT ON ACCOUNT OF RESERVES AND SURPLUSES OR PROFIT RESERVES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE RE - DRAFTED BALANCE SHEET. 13 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) , WHEREIN THE FINDING OF THE FACT WAS G IVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS AND OTHER NON - INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE MORE THAN INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES, THEN IT WOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTMENT 13 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN WITH INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF IT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUN AL IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE AT VARIANCE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THE BUSINESS FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SUND RY CREDITORS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS. 1 4 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA) . HOWEVER , THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IS RELATABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 I.E. BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES I.E. THE METHOD TO BE A PPLIED FOR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE. SIMILARLY, THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS. VS. CIT (2012) 247 CTR (DEL) 162 IS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998 - 99 TO 2005 - 06 I.E. TO THE PERIOD WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SAME IS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) / 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT HELD THAT WHERE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND / OR LOA NS TAKEN, THEN PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENT OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. THE NATURE OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US AS POINTED OUT IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, WHICH ARE CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED 14 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH FUNDS CANNOT BE SAID AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS AND NOT FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN THE BUSINESS ASSETS I.E. FIXED ASSETS, STOCK IN TRADE, ETC. AND ALSO PLACED MARGIN MONEY FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS WITH BANK TO TALING RS. 2. 42 CRORES . I N VIEW OF THE BUSINESS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUSINESS ASSETS CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE W ITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS AND HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. ADMITTEDLY, THE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE OUT OF COMMON POOL I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY THE PARTNERS, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS PAYING INTEREST AND OTHER BUSINESS FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS SINCE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF COMMON POOL OF INVESTMENTS, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WERE CLEARLY ATTRACTED AN D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES IS TO BE UPHELD. IS TO BE UPHELD. 1 5 . NOW, COMING TO THE LAST LIMB OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE IN LINE WITH THE FORMULA PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID SUB - RUL E. HOWEVER, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CANARA BANK VS. ACIT (2014) 99 DTR 36 (KARN) , WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE SINCE THE DIVIDEND WAS RE - INVESTED IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS ITSELF, NO EXPENDITURE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN THE SAID INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY DIRECT EXPENSES FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, SOME PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS ATTRIBUTABLE FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS IN FUNDS, INCOME FROM WHICH IS NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE BEEN REINVESTED BY THE FUND MANAGER ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND TAKING 15 ITA NO. 533 /PN/201 3 STEPS FOR ITS REDEMPTION AND REINVESTMENT INVOLVED AN ELEMENT OF EXPENDITURE AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES, SUCH EXPENDITURE IS DISALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH OCTOBER , 2015. / GCVSR / COPY OF THE O RDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; 2 ) THE DEPARTMENT; 3 ) THE CIT(A) - V, PUNE ; 4 ) THE CIT - V, PUNE ; 5 ) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6 ) GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , //TRUE COPY// / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE