M.G. CONSULTING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7232/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8119 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Commercial expediency
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMB ER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ) M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 4, CHANDAN NIWAS (OLD) 1 ST FLOOR MATHURDAS VISANJI ROAD BEHIND ANDHERI GYMKHANA ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI-400 069 VS. DCIT-10(2)(2) ROOM NO.209 AAYKAR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AA ACN3292Q APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL SATHE, AR REVENUE BY SHRI. KAILASH MANGAL, DR DATE OF HEARING 16 / 01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/01/2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, MUMBAI, BOTH DATED 19/09/2018 FOR THE ASST. YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDE NTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED-OFF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA.NO.7232/MUM/2018 FOR AY 2013-14:- ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS, MORE OR LESS RAISED COMMON GRO UNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR THE AY 201 3-14 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING LOA NS TO SISTER CONCERNS AND THEREFORE THE RATIO OF THE APEX COURT IN S.A. BUILDERS LTD. WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 AND STRICTLY IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. IS ANYWAY APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND TO THE EXTENT THE APPELLANT POSS ESSES INTEREST-FREE FUNDS TO ADVANCE INTEREST FREE LOANS, THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 AND GROUND NO.2 AND STRICTLY IN THE ALTERATIVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL UTILIZATION OF FUNDS DURING THE YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD ALTER OR AMEND A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.7232/MUM/2018 FOR AY 2013-14 ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ADVISORY/ CONSULTANCY SERVICES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2013-14 ON 27/09/2013, DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 53,59,198/-. THE CASE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E LD. AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED INTEREST BE ARING FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE TO GIVE LOANS AND ADVANCES TO ITS RELATED CONCERNS. THEREFORE, CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN AS TO WHY INTEREST PAID ON LOANS SHALL NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT FOR DIVERSION OF LOAN FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER, DATED 15/02/2016 SUBMITTED TH AT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THERE IS A COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING LOANS . THEREFORE, ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 3 INTEREST PAID ON LOANS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 36( 1)(III) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A BUILDERS LTD. VS CIT (288 ITR 01). 4. THE LD. AO AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESEE AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS LOANS AND AD VANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE H AS ADVOCATED THE THEORY OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING LOANS TO SISTER CONCERNS, BUT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT REALLY THERE IS A BUSINESS CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERNS. THE LD. AO FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT IF YOU GO THROUGH THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N THE LONG TERM BORROWING WERE INCREASED TO RS. 4,00,52,040/- FROM RS. 2,40,27,850/-, WHEREAS THE SHORT TERM LOANS AND ADV ANCES WERE INCREASED TO RS. 3,34,26,600/- TO RS.2,61,92,760/-. HE, FURTHER NOTED THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR E ND SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO UTILIZATION OF THE LOANS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOS E OF BUSINESS OTHER THAN DIVERTING THEM TO GIVE LOANS AND ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. THEREFORE, HE OPINED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICATION AND ACCORDINGLY, BY TAKING NOTE OF RATE OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS LOANS BORROWED FROM BANKS AND OTHER SOURCES, ADOPTED 15% RATE OF INTERE ST PER ANNUM ON THE TOTAL INTEREST FREE LOANS GIVEN TO SISTER CO NCERNS AND WORKED OUT INTEREST DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 50,13,990/-. HOWE VER, BY TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT A SUM OF RS. 20,73,421/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA), THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 29 ,40,569/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 4 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE TH E LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, I N THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) AND ARGUED THAT LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS/ASSOCIATES TOWARDS BUS INESS PURPOSE AND THE ELEMENT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IS INVOLV ED IN GIVING LOANS AND THEREFORE, NO INTEREST CAN BE DISALLOWED U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE ASSESEE HAD ALSO TAKEN AN AL TERNATIVE ARGUMENT, IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD . 178 TAXMANN.COM 135 (BOM.) AND SUBMITTED THAT IF, THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH, INTEREST FREE AND OVER DRAFT AND, OR LOANS ARE TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT LOANS AND ADV ANCES ARE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED ARE AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSEE. IF INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE LOAN S AND ADVANCES, THEN NO DISALLOWANCES COULD BE MADE U/S 36(1)(III)O F THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS C ITED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVOCATED THE THEORY OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, BUT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH THE FACTS THAT THERE IS A BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SISTER CONCERNS. H E, FURTHER NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIE S AND POWER LTD (SUPRA), BUT EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED ,HOW THE PRINCIPLES OF SAID JUDGMENT IS A PPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. HE, FURTHER NOTED THAT T HE HONBLE BOMBAY ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 5 HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACT URING COMPANY LTD. (2010) 328 ITR 81 HAS STIPULATED THAT THE ASSE SSE IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THAT ON THE DATE OF EXTENDING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES, THERE WAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE , BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, HE OPINED THAT T HERE IS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. AO TO DISALLOW INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III), ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED INT EREST DISALLOWANCES ON INTEREST FREE LOANS GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS. HO WEVER, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT SINCE, THE LD. AO HAS DISALLOWED PARTIAL INTEREST U/S 40(A)(IA) , AND SAID DISALLOWANCES HAS BEEN DELETED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARA 4.1 OF HIS ORDER, HAS CONFIRM THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS INTEREST OF RS. 29,40,569/-. AGGRIEV ED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESEE SUBMITTED THAT THE L D.CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING INTEREST DISALLOWANCES U/S 36(1 )(III) TOWARDS LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS, WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING LOANS TO SISTER CONCERNS AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE AP EX COURT, IN THE CASE OF S.A BUILDERS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS SQUARELY APP LICABLE TO ASSESSEE CASE. THE LD. AR, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A LTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA, IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD (SUPRA), BUT THE LD.CIT(A) REJECTED ARGUM ENTS WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW SAID JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CASE. THE LD. AR FURTHER REFERRING TO FINA NCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR THE YEAR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS. 203.58 CRORES, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR EXPLAI NING LOANS AND ADVANCES, BUT THE LD. AO HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATI ON FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASONS. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 6 MADE AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS, IN LIGHT OF TOTAL L OANS AND ADVANCES CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO TO DISALLOW INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) AND SUBMITTED THAT IF YOU GO THROUGH THE SCHEDULE OF SHORT TERM LOANS AND ADVANCES, ONLY A SUM OF RS. 2,58,72,000/- HAS B EEN GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES AND OTHER LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE EI THER FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS, LOANS AND ADVANCES TO EMPLOYEES AND OTHE R OBLIGATIONS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS . THEREFORE, IF AT A LL INTEREST NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED, THE LD. AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO RESTRI CT INTEREST DISALLOWANCES TO THE EXTENT OF UTILIZATION OF FUNDS TO ADVANCES AND LOANS TO RELATED PARTIES. 8. THE LD. DR , ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORT ING ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND ALSO, AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS TO COVER-UP LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE SISTER CON CERNS AND HENCE, THERE IS NO REASONS TO DEVIATE FROM THE FIN DINGS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO CONFIRM INTEREST DISALLOWANCES U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE HAS MADE HUGE BORROW ING FROM BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTUITIONS AND DIVERTED PART OF SUCH FUNDS TO SISTER CONCERNS TO GIVE INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES. FURTHER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III), IF ANY BORROW ED FUNDS IS DIVERTED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES, THEN INTEREST PAID TO TH AT EXTENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACT UAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND, IF YOU EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE THAT IT HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS OUT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 7 CLAIMS WITH THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED B USINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERNS. NO DOUBT , THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ,IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) HAS APPLICABLE, IF THE ASSESSE E MADE OUT A CASE OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING LOANS TO SISTE R CONCERNS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE O F BUSINESS CONNECTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON THE BY THE ASSESEE IN THE CASE OF S.A BUILDERS LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE. 10. COMING BACK THE SECOND ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESE E, IN LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN A LTERNATIVE ARGUMENT, IN LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDGMENT THAT IF OWN F UNDS IS IN EXCESS OF LOANS AND ADVANCE OR THERE IS MIXED FUNDS, INCL UDING OWN FUNDS, THEN THE PRESUMPTION GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESEE THAT LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN IS OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS. IN TH IS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING FINANCIAL S TATEMENTS OF THE ASSESEE, WE FIND THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED LOSSES FROM ITS BUSINESS. FURTHER THE NET WORTH OF THE ASSESEE HAS BEEN REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY DUE TO LOSSE S INCURRED FROM THE BUSINESS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE LONG TERM BORRO WINGS AND SHORT TERM BORROWINGS ARE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO INTEREST FREE FUND AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESEE TO EXPLAIN LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO SIST ER CONCERNS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF RELIA NCE UTILITY POWER LTD, IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE. AS REGARDS, ANOTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESEE, IN LIGHT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR THAT THE LD. AO HAS INCORR ECTLY TAKEN LOANS ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 8 AND ADVANCES AS PER SCHEDULE OF SHORT TERM LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS. 3,34,26,601/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES TO RELATED PARTIES IS ONLY AT RS. 2,58,72,330/- AND THEREFORE, IF AT ALL INTEREST DISALLOWANCES IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ,THEN THE LD. AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO INTEREST DISALLOWANCES TO THE EXTENT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES ACTUALLY GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS. WE FIND THAT, AS PER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR THE YEAR, THE ASSESS EE HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES TO RELATED PARTIES OF RS.2,58,72,330/- , WHEREAS THE LD. AO HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE OF RS. 3,34,26,600/-, WHI CH INCLUDES OTHER ADVANCES GIVEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ADVANCES GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL BU SINESS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS F OR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THE LD. AO IS INCORRECT IN TAKING OTHER ADVANCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES IS AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. AO, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT CLEAR FROM TH E RECORDS. THEREFORE, FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, WE RESTORED THE ISSU E BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO AND DIRECT HIM TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT S OF THE ASSESSEE, IN LIGHT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FO R THE YEAR THAT ACTUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO RELATED PARTI ES IS ONLY AT RS. 2,58,72,330/-. IF THE LD. AO FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES TO RELATED PARTIES TO IS ONLY RS. 2,58 ,72,330/-, THEN THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT INTEREST DISALLOWANC ES U/S 36(1)(III) TO THAT EXTENT. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2013-14 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NOS.7232 & 7233/MUM/2018 M.G. CONSULTING PVT.LTD. 9 ITA NO.7233/MUM/2018 12. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES, WHICH WE HAD CONSIDERED IN ITA NO . 7232/MUM/2018. THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.7232/MUM/2018 SHALL MUTATIS-MUTANDIS APPL Y TO THIS APPEAL, AS WELL. THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE PARTLY ALLOWED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E AND DIRECT THE LD. AO TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR A Y 2013-14. 13. AS A RESULT, BOTH APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22/01/2 020 SD/- ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) SD/- ( G. MANJUNATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 22/01/2020 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//