HINDUJA VENTURES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6608/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84200 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PERFUNCTORILY INVOKING FORM; AO US A MECHANICALLY
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA ,OA ,OA ,OA JH JH JH JH MH MHMH MH- -- - D:.KKDJ JKO D:.KKDJ JKO D:.KKDJ JKO D:.KKDJ JKO] YS[KK LNL; ] YS[KK LNL; ] YS[KK LNL; ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K DS LE{K DS LE{K DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6608/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED, 49/50, IN CENTRE, MIDC, 12 TH ROAD, MAROL, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400093 VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 8(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. PAN: AAACH2058N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2012 OF CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN SUSTAINING I NCONCEIVABLE DISALLOWANCE AGGREGATING RS. 1,96,40,000/- [RS.97.1 0 LACS OUT OF INTEREST + RS.99.30 LACS OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. ] THRUST UPON BY AO U/S 14A BY MECHANICALLY AND PERFUNCTORILY INVOKING FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 80 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUO MOTU DIS ALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,80,600 MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ASSESSEE BY SHRI HARI S. RAHEJA REVENUE BY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 14-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2014 HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 2 | P A G E 1.2 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND AS SUCH NO D ISALLOWANCE ULS 14A IS CALLED FOR. 1.3 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E APPELLANT'S OWN CAPITAL EXCEED THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS BY ALMOST THAN 3 TIMES THUS JUSTIFYING THAT FALLING WITHIN TH E PARAMETERS OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES LTD. 313 ITR 340 (BOM). 1.4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE C LAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT FOR INVOKING RULE 80, THE SATISFACTION OF AO A BOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESSENTIAL PRECONDITION ULS 14A(2) AND SUCH STATUTORY SATISFACTION CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT GENERAL LY AND IN A SWEEPING MANNER DEHORS THE 'ACCOUNTS' OF THE ASSESSEE. 1.5 THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN GIVING MISLEADING A ND FACTUALLY INCORRECT IMPRESSION IN PARA 3.7 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 80 HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WHICH TANTAMOUNT TO ITS ADMISSION OF DISALLOWANCE. 2.THE CIT(A) ERRED IN PARTIALLY SUSTAINING THE BALA NCE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE RS. 2,60,588/- INCURRED ) FOR SECURING THE POWER SUPPLY AND TOWARDS PROTECTION FROM ENCROACHMENT ETC. OF THE LA ND HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AND IN HOLDING THE SAME TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDI TURE. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED D IVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 2,04,40,000/- BEING EXEMPT U/S 10(34), IT HAD N OT MADE ANY CORRESPONDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUS E AS TO WHY A SUITABLE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE DI VIDEND INCOME IN QUESTION AS THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS DIRECTLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN ROUTINE MANNER. TH US THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLO WANCE OF ANY PART OF HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 3 | P A G E THE INCOME IS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THE RESERVE AND SURPLUS FUND HAS INCREASED FROM RS. 570 .61 CRORES TO 579.57 CRORE DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2008. ACCO RDINGLY, THERE IS A NET INCREASE OF 8.95 CRORE. WHEREAS THERE IS NET D ECREASE IN THE INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANY BY 56.06 CRORES CRORES AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF I NTEREST RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY ON A NET BASIS, THE INTEREST INCOME EXCEEDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THUS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NO EXPE NDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE TAX FREE DIVIDEND INCOME A ND ACCORDINGLY NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE, THE SAME SHOULD BE O N REASONABLE BASIS AND RESTRICTED TO 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS IT H AS BEEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE COMPUTA TION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D AT RS. 2,04,39,920/-. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND M ADE A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AS PER RULE 8D AT RS. 2,04,40,000/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORECIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EX PENDITURE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS THE SAME HAS BEEN DI RECTLY CREDITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN SHARES IS RS. 170.57 CRORE AGAINST THE ASSESSEES O WN FUND OF RS. 600 CRORE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIEN T FUND FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. HE HAS RELID UPON THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LIMITED (313 ITR 340) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 4 | P A G E HAVING ITS OWN SUFFICIENT FUND ALONG WITH THE BORRO WED FUND PRESUMPTION WOULD BE RAISED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED ITS OWN FUND FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE AND BORROWED FUND FOR THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY , THEREFORE, NO INTEREST EXPENSES CAN BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A. HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 170.57 CRORE, T HE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1.03 CRORE IS ON HTMT TELECOM PVT. LT D., WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE INVESTME NT IS WITH GROUP COMPANY NAMELY INDUS-IND BANK. THE LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, BORROWED FUND UT ILIZED ONLY FOR THREE DAYS DURING THE YEAR AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE STATEM ENT OF FUND FLOW AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE MADE MORE THAN THE PROPORTIONATE PERIOD OF USE OF B ORROWED FUND. FURTHER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AS SESSEE HAS SOLD THE MUTUAL FUNDS AND TO THAT EXTENT THE FUND WAS AVAILA BLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR. HE HAS RELIE D UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD. (MUM-ITA NO. 5408/MUM/2 012 AND 4957/MUM/2012 (II) JM FINANCIAL LTD. (MUM)-ITA NO. 4521/MUM/2012 (III) EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD. (CHEN)-1503/MDS/20 12. (IV) WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. 236 ITR 1(S C ) 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AS WELL AS SOLD THE INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, THE HIGH LEVEL DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE AND RE-INVESTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE INTEREST ON THE BORR OWED FUNDS, THEREFORE, THE FACT OF USE OF BORROWED FUND ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE OWN FUND AND INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE OWN FUND AS HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 5 | P A G E CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY USED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT BORNE OUT FR OM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED ITS OWN FUND FOR INVESTMENT IN QU ESTION. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUB MITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE DIRECT NEXUS BETWE EN THE INTEREST FREE FUND AND INVESTMENT THEN THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A O N ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS MUST. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR CIT (A) HAS TAKEN ANY STEP TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS O WN FUND WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION. ONCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HIS OWN FUND IS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT THEN IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN GIVE THE FINDING ON THE AVAILABILITY AS WE LL AS USE OF INTEREST FREE FUND. FURTHER A VERY RELEVANT ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN E XAMINED REGARDING INVESTMENT IN THE SUBSIDIARY AND GROUP CONCERN. SO FAR AS THE INVESTMENT IN THE SUBSIDIARY IS CONCERNED, IT IS NO T WITH THE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE OF EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME BUT FOR HOLDING CONTROLLING STAKE IN THE SUBSIDIARY. FURTHER IF THE INVESTMENTS IN SUBSI DIARY IS FOR CONTROL AND FOR A LONG PERIOD THEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWA NCE AS PER FORMULA PROVIDED UNDER RULE 8D, THE SAID AMOUNT OF INVESTME NT SHOULD BE EXECUTED FROM THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT. IN THE CASE I N HAND, NON OF THESE ASPECTS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A CONTENTION THAT THE NET INTEREST RECEIPT IS MORE THAN THE INTEREST PAYMENT AND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CA N BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES M AIN BUSINESS HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 6 | P A G E ACTIVITY IS ONLY INVESTMENT AND EARNING THE INTERES T INCOME. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE SURPLUS FUND PARKED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR EARNING THE INTEREST OR OTHERWISE ADVAN CED FOR EARNING THE INTEREST BUT THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST U/S 14A, THE INTEREST INCOME BEING THE MAIN BUSINESS ACTIVI TY OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF BORROWED FUND USED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED ON THE POINT OF AVAILABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND AND INVESTMENT IN QUESTION IN THE SUBSIDIA RY AND GROUP CONCERN AS WELL AS THE DURATION OF USE OF BORROWED FUND AND THE INVESTMENT WHETHER IT IS A LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN THE SUBSIDIARIES OR NOT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER AND DECIDE AFRESH AFTER GIVING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. AS REGARDS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO BE DIS ALLOWED U/S 14A. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME, HOWEVE R, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPOSED OFF SOME INVESTMENTS AND ALSO MADE NEW INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE , HIGH LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY OF THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVE D FOR TAKEN THE DECISION OF SALE OF INVESTMENT AND MAKING NEW INVES TMENT. ONCE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN DECIS ION MAKING PROCESS IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 14A ARE ATTRACTED. HOWEVER AS WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT FOR THE PU RPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D, THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE STAKE S HOULD BE EXECUTED FROM THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 7 | P A G E DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14 A ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCES WORKED UNDER RULE 8D CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE ACTUAL CLAIM OF EXPENSES AT TRIBUTABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. 9. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEND ITURE INCURRED FOR SECURING THE POWER SUPPLY AND PROTECTION FROM ENCRO ACHMENT OF THE LAND. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THE LAND WHICH ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ARE AS UNDER:- LAISIONING CHARGES FOR GETTING PERMANENT POWER SUPPLY AND PURCHASES OF ELECTRICAL PARTS 70,974 EXPENSES PAID TOWARDS MECHANIZED TILING OF LAND 76,050 ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION WORK 1,56,214 TOTAL 3,36,638 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THES E EXPENSES BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAI D DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WITH REGARD TO STOCK-IN-TRADE AND CANNOT BE HELD AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT O F THE BANGALORE LAND WHICH GIVES THE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESS EE AND ENHANCE THE VALUE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 12. ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFF ICER BEFORE CIT(A) AND GOT PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 76,050/ -. HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 8 | P A G E 13. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN RESPEC T OF THE LAND WHICH IS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THEREFORE, THE SAID EXPE NDITURE CANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE HAS REFERRED THE D ETAILS OF THE EXPENSES AND SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS ENDUR ING IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT SHOWN THE STOCK IN TRADE IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND IT WAS SHOWN DIRECTLY INTO THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED RELATING TO THE LAND NOT INCLUDED AS STOCK IN TRADE IN P&L ACCOUNT CANNO T BE ALLOWED. 15. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, HO WEVER, THIS WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT DIRECTLY TAKEN INTO BA LANCE SHEET. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN PARA 4.2 AS UNDE R:- THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO THE SAID DISALLOWAN CE ON THE GROUNDS THAT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED WITH REGARD TO STOCK IN TRADE CANNOT BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPE LLANT THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WITH REGARD TO STOCK IN TRADE CANNOT BE CA PITAL. HAVING SAID THAT, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT, BARRING RS. 76,050/ - INCURRED ON TILING OF THE LAND, THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE WOULD GO TO ENHAN CING THE VALUE OF THE STOCK IN TRADE. THEREFORE, EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2 ,60,588/- SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE CLOSING STOCK AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ALLOW ED AS EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1). IN THE RESULT, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELI EF OF RS. 76,050,/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. SINCE THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN A S STOCK IN TRADE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE ALONE C ANNOT BE BOOKED TO HINDUJA VENTURES LIMITED 9 | P A G E THE P&L ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL I S DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF NOV.2014 SD/- SD/- ( D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 14-11 -2014 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI