IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 707 /MUM./ 2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 4 05 ) SHRI PRADEEP JAGDISHRAJ VOHRA DIEAL ANNEXE, 563, CENTRAL AVENUE CORNER OF 11 TH ROAD, CHAMBUR MUMBAI 400 071 PAN AABPV2297D .. / APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 22(2), MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI PREMANAND J. DATE OF HEARING 07.0 5 .2015 DATE OF ORDER 07.05.2015 O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. TH IS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER 2012 , PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - 19 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 05 . FOLLOW ING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R/W RULE 8D OF ` 9,68,799 AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE DCIT BE DELETED. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL. EARLIER, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE CIDE THE SHRI PRADEEP JAGDISHRAJ VOHRA 2 IMPUGNED ORDER ISSUED AS PER THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN ITO V/S DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. [2008] 119 TTJ (MUM.) 289 (SB). ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS BOUND BY THE EARLIER D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED SPECIAL BENCH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND, HENCE, FILED THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. THI S APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 7 TH MAY 2015, HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SMALL, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS SEEN THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SPECIAL BENCH DECISION WAS CONSIDERED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT, [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM.), WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D, WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09. IT IS FURTHER HELD SHRI PRADEEP JAGDISHRAJ VOHRA 3 BY T HEIR LORDSHIP THAT THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 03, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE DUTY BOUND TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING A REASONABLE METHOD HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S HDFC BANK LTD., 366 ITR 505 (BOM.). THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, MAY ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OTHER DECISIO N BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WOULD BE RE ADJUDICATED AS PER LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 07.05.2015 SD/ - RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 07.05.2015 SHRI PRADEEP JAGDISHRAJ VOHRA 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE ; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) T HE CIT(A ) ; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI