DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI V. PLAZA HOTELS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5855/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100937 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: R C JAIN ARUN VERMA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income; Notional interest
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5855/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE DY.CIT 8(2), ROOM NO.216-A, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI -40020 VS. M/S. P L AZA HOTELS PVT. LTD. 70-C, NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI 400099. PAN NO. : AA ACP2117N ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ITA NO.5950/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S. P L AZA HOT ELS PVT. LTD. 70-C, NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI 400099. VS. T HE DY.CIT 8(2), ROOM NO.216-A, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI -400020 ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV ASSESSEE BY S/ SHRI R.C.JAIN/ ARUN VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 02/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /08/2015 O R D E R PER G.S.PANNU, A.M: ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 2 THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) DATED 29/07/2013, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ASSES SMENT ORDER DATED 28/11/2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTA INING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS, INTER-ALI A, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS AND ACTIVITIES IN CIDENTAL THERETO, FINANCING ACTIVITIES AND WIND POWER GENERATION AND SALES. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SUBSTANTIVE D ISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITH REGARD TO THE AMO UNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KAMAT HOTELS (I) LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMENT FEE (ROYALTY). THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED SUCH INCOME AS INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED THE SAID INCOME AS BUSIN ESS INCOME. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASED ON HIS STAND IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST YEARS. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACC ORDINGLY, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PAR TIES THAT THE AFORESAID DISPUTE CAME UP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A.Y 2006-07, WHEREIN BY WAY OF ITS ORDER IN ITA NOS.6676& 6636/MUM/2011 DATED ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 3 13/9/2013, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT INCOME RECEIVED FROM KAMAT HOTELS (I) LTD. WAS TO B E CONSIDERED AS A BUSINESS INCOME . THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13/9/2013(SUPRA) IS RELEVANT:- 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS RUNNING THE HOTEL ITSELF BEFORE GIVING TO KHIL UNDER AGREEMENT ENTERE D IN THE YEAR OF 1994. THE ENTIRE ACTIVITIES OF HOTEL CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSES SEE ITSELF BEFORE ENTERING THE AGREEMENT WAS GIVEN TO KHIL, AN INTEREST FREE SECUR ITY WAS ALSO OBTAINED FROM KHIL, WHICH WAS REFUNDABLE AFTER COMPLETION OF PERI OD ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHARING A REVENUE AT THE RATE OF 1 % OF THE REVENUE EARNED BY THE KHIL ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNING OF HOTEL O WNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FACTS IN HIS ORD ER THAT M/S.KHIL WAS ALLOWED TO RENOVATE THE HOTEL OR RECONSTRUCT THE SAME FROM HIS OWN FUNDS, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHARACTER OF ASSET, OWNED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN CHANGED. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED HOTEL, WHICH WAS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ENTERING, INTO THE AGREEMENT. WHATEVER THE REQUIREM ENT OF THE HOTEL WAS THERE, I THE SAME WAS MADE BY KHIL WITH ITS OWN FUND AS AGRE ED UPON. THE CHARACTER OF THE ASSET WAS THAT THE ENTIRE HOTEL WHICH WAS RUN B Y THE ASSESSEE ITSELF EARLIER WAS GIVEN UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO M/S. KHIL TO RUN T HE HOTEL. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS WAS AN I EXPLOITATION OF COM MERCIAL ASSET FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND WHATEVER THE RECEIPTS ARE RECEIVED FRO M EXPLOITING OF COMMERCIAL ASSET FOR BUSINESS USE ARE TO BE TREATED AS BUSINE SS RECEIPTS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING THIS HOTEL, THE RECEIPTS FROM THE HOTEL WERE SHOWN AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THEY WERE ACCEPTED. AFTER GIV ING TO KHIL I.E. IN THE YEAR 1994,THE RETURN WAS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995- 96 SHOWING THE REVENUE RECEIPT FROM KHIL AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). UP T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE AO AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM KHIL ARE B USINESS ASSET, WERE ACCEPTED. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2003-04 THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE MATTER REACHED TO THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER DISPUTED BY THE AO TH AT THE REVENUE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM M/S. KHIL UNDER THE AGREEMENT ARE BUS INESS RECEIPT AS THEY WERE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY CH ARACTER OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT HAS BEEN CHANGED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE CASE IN HAND IS APP LICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT UNDER THE HEAD BUS INESS INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 4 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 20 08-09 ALSO, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS COMMON ORDER IN CROSS-APPEALS O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE VIDE ITA NOS. 3191/MUM/2012 AND 3192/MUM/2012 DATED 25/7/2014 FOLLOWED ITS EARLIE R DECISION FOR A.Y 2006-07(SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THE MANAGEMENT FEE (ROYALTY) RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KAMAT HOTELS (I) PVT. LTD. WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AT THE TIME OF H EARING, THERE IS NO ASSERTION BY THE REVENUE THAT THE AFORESAID PRE CEDENTS HAVE BEEN ALTERED BY ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, F OLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE MANAGEMENT FEE (ROYALTY) RECEIVED FROM KAMAT HOTELS (I) LTD. IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS A C ONSEQUENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE CROSS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS 1 TO 3 HAVE BEEN RAISED WHICH ALSO R ELATE TO THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KAMAT HOTELS ( I) LTD. 1) 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE TO THE ANNUAL RATEABLE VALUE DETERMINED BY BRIHAN MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT IF THE RATEABLE VALUE UNDER MUNICIPAL LAWS DOES NOT REPRES ENT THE CORRECT FAIR RENT, THEN AS PER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER MAY DETERMINE THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL/ EVIDENCE ON RECORD.' 2) 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE HOTEL C OMPRISING OF LAND, BUILDING, MACHINERY OTHER COMMON FACILITIES LIKE SWIMMING POO L, RESTAURANTS, CLUB, GYM ETC, IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 80 CRORES FROM THE TENANT IN LIEU OF REASONABLE RENT.' 3) 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST @ 15% ON THE INTERES T FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS 80 ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 5 CRORES IS NOT RENT LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 'IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' U/S 23(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACT THAT THE QUANTUM OF INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT OF RS 80 CRORES BEING MANI FOLD OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF RENT OF RS.76,15,877/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN TERMS OF THE RATIO OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION (CA NO.5407 OF 2011).' THE DISPUTE IN THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS RENDER ED NUGATORY ONCE THE BASIC QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME REC EIVED FROM KAMAT HOTELS (I) LTD. AS BUSINESS INCOME IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LD. DR, THE INSTANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT DO NOT SURVIVE, FO LLOWING OUR DECISION IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMIS SED. 6. NOW, THE ONLY ISSUE REMAINING IN THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CROSS-APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, RELATES T O THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.71,07,580/-. 6.1 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL, INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THIS ASPECT:- 2. DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A : I) ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,49,74,55 9/- ALREADY DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 36(1)(III), AND AGAIN CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II). THE LD. CIT(A) HA S NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. II) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAI M AGAINST DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST IS CONFIRMED IN THE ORDER DATED 9-0 4-2012 BY THE ID. CIT(A) -17 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSOCIATE OF THE APPELLANT, MR VITH AL V KAMAT FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2008- 09, NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL. ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 6 6.2 AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME F ILED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.33,78,9 40/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER COMPUTED THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,04,86,520/- BY APPLYIN G THE COMPUTATION FORMULA OF RULE-8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RU LES,1962(IN SHORT THE RULES). THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED PARTIA L RELIEF BY HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS LIABL E TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE. 6.3 PRESENTLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED A M ODIFIED GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ASPECT, WHICH READS AS UND ER:- DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A: (A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.71,07,580/- U/S .14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. (B) THE A.O ERRED IN MAKING A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,66,056/- (84,44,996 33,78,940-) OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. (C) THE A.O ERRED IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 0,41,524/- OUT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. 6.4 EXPLAINING THE MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT H AS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE SAME IS BASED ON THE LEGAL POS ITION, WHICH HAS DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF RETURN AND FO R THAT MATTER REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF GARWARE WALL ROPES LIMITED (ITA NO.5408/M/12 AND ITA NO.4957/M/12) DATED 15/01/2014 AND IN THE CASE OF J.M. FINANCIAL LIMITED (ITA NO.4521/M/1 2) DATED 26/03/2014. ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 7 6.5 IN SO FAR AS THE CROSS-GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME READ AS UNDER:- 4) 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS PROPE RLY RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AND THEREFOR E SINCE RULE 8D IS INVOKED, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT AS PER THE FORMUL A PRESCRIBED THEREIN AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY DEVIATION THERE FROM.' 5) 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT INVESTMENT I N PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM TAX AND HENCE NOT INCLUDIBLE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THAT THE SHARE INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10(2A) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAVE TO BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME.' 6) 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE INVESTMENT IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS NOT TAX EXEMPT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS E XEMPT U/S 10(2A) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN INCLUDIN G INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS PART OF INVESTMENT WHICH IS CAPABLE OF GENE RATING EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF VISHNU ANANT MAHAJAN VS. CIT (ITA NO.3002/AHD/2009 DTD. 25-05-2012) WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSINGH POPAT VS. ACIT (ITA NO.7534/MUM/2004 DTD. 06-01-200 9) WAS APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD.' 6.6 THE AFORESAID GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, O STENSIBLY, RELATE TO THE PARTIAL RELIEF ALLOWED BY CIT(A) IN T HE CONTEXT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 6.7 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO, SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y 2006-07 AS WELL AS IN A.Y 2007-08 VIDE ORDERS DATED 13/09/2013 (SUPRA) AND 25/7/2014(SUPRA ). THE LD. ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 8 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN US THROUG H THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25/7/ 2014 (SUPRA) FOR A.Y 2007-08, WHEREIN A REFERENCE HAS ALSO BEEN MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2006-07 (SUPRA), AND THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSE E ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GARWARE WALL ROPES LIMITED (SUPRA). THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS REITERATED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GARWARE WAL L ROPES LIMITED (SUPRA) TO SAY THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED IN CASE WHERE EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED FRO M STRATEGIC INVESTMENT MADE. NOTABLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PRECEDENT, THE MATTER WAS PUT TO THE PARTIES IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING. THE RIVAL CO UNSELS FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE MATTER RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT BE RESTORED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A DECISION AFRESH IN THE LIGH T OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL REWORK THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT, IF ANY, AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . THUS, THE CROSS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENU E ON THE ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 9 ASPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. RESULTANTLY, THE CROSS APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/08/2015 SD/- SD/- ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( G.S.PANNU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 31/08/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI VM , SR. PS ITA NO.5855&5950/MUM/2013 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 19 /08 /2015 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24 /08 / 2015 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER