, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , !' #$, % , & BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. NO.5561/MUM/2015 ( %' ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SMT. HEENA PARAG CHHEDA THE RUBY, 8 TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, TULSI PIPE ROAD, DADAR (W), MU8MBAI - 400028 ' / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1)(4) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ASSPC7587Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 22.09.2016 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.10.2016 #$ / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 29.10.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 33, ASSESSEE BY: MS. MRUGAKSHI JOSHI DEPARTMENT BY: CAPT. PRADEEP S. ARYA ITA NO.5561/M/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 2 MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- A. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMIN G THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D, ALTHOUGH NO EXPEN SES HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. THE LEARNED AO FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY NEXUS BETWEEN TH E EXPENDITURE INCURRED THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED. B. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERA TION, THAT AS PER SECTION 14A(2), THE AO CANNOT IPSO FACTO APP LY RULE 8D BUT CAN DO SO ONLY WHERE HE RECORDS SATISFACTIO N ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO ESTA BLISH THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS CLAIM. C. COMPUTATION UNDER RULE 8D : WITHOUT PREJUDICE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D2(II), ALTHOUGH THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE PARTNERSHI P FIRM, AND THEREFORE IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RULE 8D2(II). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.10.2010 DECLARING THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,31,351/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.47,05,530/- VIDE ORDER D ATED 21.03.2013. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND FILED AN APPEAL ON 19.04.2013 WITH CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI WHO DEC IDED THE APPEAL BY VIRTUE OF ORDER DATED 29.10.2015. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION U/S.14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME ITA NO.5561/M/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 3 TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). THEREFORE TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFICE R HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF WHILE GIVING THE EFFECT OF CIT(A) ORDER BY V IRTUE OF ORDER DATED 14.01.2016. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WANT T O PRESS THIS APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE SAID STATEMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE ONLY RAISED THE POINT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE ACT. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY ORDER TO BE TO BE DISMISSE D BEING NOT PRESSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER , 2016. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( MUMBAI; )# DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.5561/M/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 4 * +%'#, -,(' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. -./ &&01 , 01' , ' ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /34 5 / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, - & //TRUE COPY// ./$ ! /(DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI