FERESHTE SETHNA, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 11(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7086/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2136 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANATIR GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 121, MAKER CHAMBERS-IV NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN AQWPS3879H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI MRUNAL PAREKH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RANATIR GUPTA DATE OF HEARING: 02.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.11.2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 3, MUMBAI DATED 21.10.2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION FILED H ER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 14.10.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 65,15,110/- FROM PROFESSION, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SC RUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2012, WHEREIN THE INC0ME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT ` 73,31,610/- IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES: - (I) FROM BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES ` 53,931/ - (II) OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES ` 29,999/ - (III) OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR ` 1,08,296/ - (IV) OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES ` 56,800/ - (V) UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D ` 5,67,458/ - ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 2 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 31.1 2.2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI WHO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 21.10.2013. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL, WHICH IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI DATED 21.10.2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF A SUM OF RS.5,67,458/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. (A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID FIGURE O F DISALLOWANCE INCLUDED INTEREST PAID OF RS.181,607/- ON PURCHASE OF MOTOR CAR AND FOR BALANCE EXPENSES OF RS.385,856/-, THERE IS NO PROXIMATE CAUSE FOR DISALLOWANCE. (B) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS P ORTFOLIO WAS MANAGED BY ABN AMRO AND BARCLAYS BANK FOR WHICH NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID TO THEM AND (C) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS QUOTED B Y THE APPELLANT. 2. HENCE, THE TOTAL INCOME BE REDUCED BY RS.5,67,45 8/- BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 4A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D(III) THERETO . 4. GROUNDS 1 & 2 DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D 4.1.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS AP PEAL (SUPRA) PERTAIN TO THE SINGLE ISSUE OF CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE UN DER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSES SEE, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT DIVID END INCOME OF ` 12,84,516/- AND THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FO R EARNING THE SAME. ON BEING QUERIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN T HIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A DETAILED EXPLANATION TO THE AO VID E LETTER DATED 05.11.2012 (COPY PLACED AT PG. 1 TO 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK) STATING, INTER ALIA, THAT ALL INVESTMENTS WERE ROUTED THROUGH HER BANKER ABN AMRO BANK WHO DO NOT CHARGE THEIR CLIENTS ANY FEES FOR SUCH SERVI CES RENDERED. IT IS CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH IN THE ABOVE LETTER, ALL THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 3 CIRCUMSTANCES WERE EXPLAINED AS TO WHY NO ADMINISTR ATIVE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING THE SAID E XEMPT INCOME AND WHY NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR SUCH INVESTMENTS, THE AO HAS NOT AT ALL ADDRESSED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THEREIN AND IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAS MADE A FACTUALLY INCORRECT STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,67,458/- UNDER SEC TION 14A OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE COMPRI SED OF INTEREST UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) R.W.S. 14A OF ` 2,36,417/-, WHICH WAS INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN TO ICICI BANK, WHICH HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE FUNDS UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT IN INSTRUMENTS WHICH GE NERATED EXEMPT INCOME AND DETAILS OF WHICH HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO THE AO V IDE THE ABOVE REFERRED LETTER DATED 02.11.2012. HE FURTHER QUESTIONED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN THE LIGHT O F THE DISALLOWANCES ALREADY MADE BY THE AO OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, DEPRECIAT ION ON MOTOR CAR, TELEPHONE CHARGES, BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES, ETC . ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THESE DISALLOWANCES HA VE NO NEXUS, WHATSOEVER, WITH THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. 4.1.2 IT WAS URGED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AVERMEN TS PUT FORTH IN PARA 4.1 (SUPRA), IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE AO MADE THE SAI D DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D NOT ONLY ON THE FACTUALLY INCORRECT PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BUT ALSO AS THE DISALLOWANCES MADE WERE WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AS THE SA ME WERE NOT WARRANTED, BEING MADE ON A WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACT S/ITEMS AND WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS PUT FO RTH BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.1.3 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT EVEN ON APPEAL, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) MECHANICALLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTI ON 14A R.W. RULE 8D MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTIONS OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. 4.1.4 IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION PLACED BEFORE US IN THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 1 4A R.W. RULE 8D IS NOT AUTOMATIC. IN ORDER TO INVOKE RULE 8D, THE AO FIRST LY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, IT IS A PREREQUISITE THAT ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 4 HE HAS TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO EARN THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME. THE ONUS WAS ON THE AO TO PROVE THAT EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS CONTENDED THAT I N THE CASE ON HAND, THE AO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE MANDATED AND THER EFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5,67,458/- UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D MADE BY T HE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS AS SUBMITTED EARLIER. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED A.R. OF T HE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, CITED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - (I) GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. UOI ( 2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) (II) MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS. VS. CIT (2012) 3 47 ITR 272 (DEL.) (III) ACIT VS, IQBAL M. CHAGALA (2014) 34 ITR (TRIB ) 636 (MUM) (IV) AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. VS. ACIT (2012) 22 TAXMA NN.COM 99 (MUM TRIB) (V) JUSTICE SAM P. BHARUCHA VS. ADDL. ACIT (2012) 2 5 TAXMANN.COM 381 (MUM TRIB) 4.2 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. 4.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THE IS SUE OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D MADE BY THE AO AND P ERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. THE FACTS THAT EMANATE FROM THE RECORD ARE T HAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF ` 12,84,516/- WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND CLAIMED THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE SAME. ON BEING QUERIED BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 05.11.2012 (COPY PLACED AT PG. 1 TO 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK) SUBMITTED THAT, INTER ALIA, ALL INVESTMENTS W ERE ROUTED THROUGH ABN AMRO BANK, HER BANKER, WHO DO NOT CHARGE THEIR CLIE NTS ANY FEES FOR SUCH SERVICES RENDERED AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OR ADDRESSAL OF THE ASSESS EES EXPLANATION IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. RATHER IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5,67,458/-; WHICH AVERMENT IS STRONGLY ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 5 CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BEING FACTUALLY INCORR ECT AND THIS ASSERTION BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE B EFORE US. AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE AOS LACK OF CLAR ITY AND APPLICATION OF MIND FURTHER EXTENDS TO THE WORKING OF THE BREAK-UP OF T HE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF ` 5,67,458/-. FIRSTLY, UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST OF RS.2,36,417/-MADE, WAS IN RESPECT OF IN TEREST ON CAR LOAN FROM ICICI BANK WHICH HAD NO NEXUS WITH THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER; (II) THE ASSESSEES QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF ` 3,85,856/- ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS CALLED FOR, W HEN THE AO HAS SEPARATELY DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE OF ` 2,49,036/- CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION THEREON, TELEPH ONE EXPENSES AND BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). ALL THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW, ESTABLISHED AN ABJECT LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND, NON CONSIDERATI ON OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, FACTUALLY INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS, NON R ENDERING OF ANY COGENT REASONS FOR HIS ACTION AND ABJECT FAILURE ON THE PA RT OF THE AO TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO TRIGGER THE INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 BEFORE MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE THEREUNDER. THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOO, IN OUR VIEW, IS A NON SPEAKING ORDER. 4.3.2 SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUC TION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. THE PROVISION THEREOF READS AS UNDER: - 14A. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS CHAPTER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT O F EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOU NT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REG ARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELA TION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 6 (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL ALSO A PPLY IN RELATION TO A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE H AS BEEN INCURRED BY HIM IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NO T FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. 4.3.3 A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A (SUPRA) INDICATE THAT THE AO SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DI SALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 14A FOLLOWING THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN THIS REGARD UNDER RULE 8D; IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SATI SFACTION OF THE AO AS TO THE INCORRECT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS A PRE-REQUISITE FOR INVOKING THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D AND SUCH SATI SFACTION CAN BE REACHED AND RECORDED ONLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXAMINED AND VERIFIED HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO TOTALLY IGNOR ED AND DID NOT ADDRESS THE ASSESSEES DETAILED SUBMISSIONS PLACED BEFORE H IM VIDE LETTER DATED 05.11.2012 (COPY PLACED AT PG. 1 TO 5 OF PAPER BOOK ) WITHOUT APPRECIATING WHETHER THEY WERE CORRECT OR NOT, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE TOTALLY IGNORIN G THE ASSESSEES AVERMENTS AND ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE DISALLOWANCE; WHICH HAS BEEN CONTESTED AS BEING FAC TUALLY INCORRECT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTE D BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. AS MENTIONED BY US EARLIER; EVEN THE BREAK UP OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) REVEALS A DISTINCT LACK OF APP LICATION OF MIND AND APPRECIATION OF FACTS AS IT APPEARS TO BE MADE ON I NTEREST PAID ON CAR LOAN FROM ICICI BANK, WHICH HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE INVEST MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; AND UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENSES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON TH E GROUND THAT WHETHER SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR WHEN SEPARATE DISA LLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE AO FROM OUT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS TELEPH ONE CHARGES, MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION THEREOF, BUSINESS PROMOTI ON, ETC. IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO INVOKE RULE 8D AND MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE THEREUNDER ON THE PREMISE THAT DISALLOWANCE THEREUN DER IS AUTOMATIC, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES C LAIM IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME; AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 7 HAS UPHELD THE SAME. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, FOR MA KING ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, THE AO FIRSTLY WOULD HAVE TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF OTHERWISE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED NO EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AFTER HAVING EXAMINED AN VERIFIED THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS IN THIS REGARD. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER, IF THE AO RECORDS THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORREC TNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF THE EXEMPT INCOME, THAT THE MANDATE OF RULE 8D WILL FOL LOW AS PER THE METHOD PRESCRIBED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS GONE DIRECTLY TO THE SECOND STAGE OF INVOKING RULE 8D TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC TION 14A R.W. RULE 8D, ONLY ON THE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND UNCORROBORA TED ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO DISALLOWANCE THEREUNDER; WIT HOUT CONSIDERING OR ADDRESSING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 05.11.2012 THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AND REN DERING A FINDING ON THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAI M THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY HER TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D IS CALLED FOR AT ALL, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS IN THIS REGARD. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES GR OUNDS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010- 11 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2013 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA 8 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -3, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 11, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.