DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Cosmos International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 772/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7409 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKTESH MOHAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DCIT, CIRCLE 3 (1), VS. M/S. COSMOS INTERNATIONA L LTD., NEW DELHI. 1, ARADHANA COLONY, SECTOR 13, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AACCC7895A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADVOCATE AND SHRI VENKTESH MOHAN, CA REVENUE BY : MS. PARWINDER KAUR, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)- VI, NEW DELHI DATED 23.11.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,36,18,360/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.19,59,692/- BY APPLY ING RULE 8D BEING O.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL AND THE CIT (A) GRANTED THE RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE LD. AR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT I S AN ADMITTED ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 2 FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS NOT EARNED EITHER ANY EXEMPT INCOME OR CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING ANY EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS SE EN THAT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.2 CRORE WHICH WERE ACTUALLY INVEST ED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. FOR CONVENIENCE THE DETAIL S OF INVESTMENT OF RS.2 CRORE AS REFLECTED IN SCHEDULE V OF THE AUD ITED BALANCE SHEET ARE GIVEN BELOW : S.NO. DATE INVESTMENTS AMOUNT 1 12.10.2007 SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS CARPEX RS. 5 0,00,000/- OPPORTUNITY FUND 2 12.10.2007 TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND RS. 50, 00,000/- 3 12.10.2007 RELIANCE DIVERSIFIED POWER FUND RS. 50,00,000/- 4 06.11.2007 SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS CARPEX RS. 2 5,00,000/- OPPORTUNITY FUND 5 12.10.2007 TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND RS. 25, 00,000/- TOTAL RS.2,00,00,000/- FROM THE ABOVE CHART IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL THE INVES TMENTS IN VARIOUS GROWTH ORIENTED FUND WERE MADE BY THE APPEL LANT COMPANY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND NO NEW INVESTMEN T HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ALSO NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPT INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. FROM FURTHER VERIFI CATION IT IS NOTED THAT THE INVEST ET OF RS.2 CRORE WERE MADE BY THE A PPELLANT COMPANY IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 FROM ITS OWN FUND AND NO INTERE ST EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THESE MU TUAL FUNDS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY REGARDING INCURRING OF NO INTERES T EXPENDITURE. IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A PROVIDE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHAL L DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE I. T.ACT., IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, I F HE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SATI SFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FO RM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. FURTHER, THE CENTRAL B OARD OF DIRECT ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 3 TAXES (CBOT) VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 45/200S, DATED M ARCH 24TH, 2008 PRESCRIBED THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE EXPE NDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT FORMING PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME ~Y INSERTING RULE-8D IN THE INC OME-TAX RULES. HOWEVER, RULE-8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN AN AUTOMATIC MANNER. RULE 8D WOULD BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAV ING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH - (A) THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; OR (B) THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPEN DITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR. IF THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN I NCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FALL PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT FOR SUCH A PREVIOUS YEAR, HE SHALL DETERMIN E THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULE (2). THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THE SECTION 14A WAS THAT EXPEN DITURE WHICH HAS A BEARING ON EXEMPT INCOME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AS OTHERWISE THIS W OULD RESULT IN DOUBLE ADVANTAGE TO THE ASSESSEE. SO IN A NUTSHELL, THE CONDITIONS FOR THE INVOCATION OF RULE 80 READ WITH SECTION 14A ARE AS FOLLOWS: I. THE AO SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THE CLAIM OF EXP ENDITURE IN RELATION TO TAX FREE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO HIS ACCOUNTS. II. THE AO SHOULD BE RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION A HOW THE ASSESSEE'S CALCULATION IS INCORRECT. III. EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT NO EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO VERIFY T HE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH CLAIM. IV. IN CASE, THE ASSESSING .OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIE D WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRI TERIA AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, HE SH ALL HAVE TO REJECT THE CLAIM AND STATE THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 4 HAVING DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO I NCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE SA ID ACT. HE IS REQUIRED TO DO SO ON THE BASIS OF A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT. NOW ADVERTING TO THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT T HE AO HAS APPLIED RULE 80 READ WITH SECTION 14A WITHOUT ESTAB LISHING ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENT MADE. THE AO HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON 'BLE SPL. BENCH ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. ITO. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CASE REVEALS THAT IN THE AFORESAID CA SE THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, IN THE PRE SENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT, NO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED BY T HE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR MAKING INVESTMENT, HENCE THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE C HEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) . THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION THE AO HAS ERRED IN INVOKING RULE 80 IN THE PRESENT CASE WITHOUT ESTABLISHING AN Y NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLE LTD. (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIG H COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME CLAIMED P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BY TAKING THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 01. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,59,692/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IGNORING THE FACTS THAT - (A) ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES AND NO BIFURCATION FOR THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. (B) THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMINVEST LTD. HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE EVEN IF NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. . 02. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RI GHT TO FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE APPEAL. 4. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES AND NO BIFURCATION W AS PROVIDED DURING THE ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 5 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY APPLIED THE RULE 8D BY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVI NG THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE WHEN THERE IS NO EXEMPTED IN COME. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE IS EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS INCURRED TO EAR N THE EXEMPTED INCOME THERE MAY BE AN INCOME OR MAY NOT BE AN INCOME FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEN ALSO DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE AS IT WILL EFFECT THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE A LLOWED ONLY WHEN IT HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PU RPOSE. ONCE ANY EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPTED INCOME, THE INCOME MAY NOT HAVE BEEN REALIZED DURING THAT YEAR, HOWEVER, THE EXPENDITURE DESERVES TO BE DISALLOWED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AS IT IS RELATED TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPTED INCOME IN THE YEAR OR IN FUTURE YEARS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWN FUNDS OF MORE THAN RS.7.7 C RORES WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.2 CRORES IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS IN THE EARLIER Y EARS. THERE IS NO NEW INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SAME FIGURE HAS B EEN CONTINUING AS ON 31.03.2009 WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FORM PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK . NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME. THE INVESTME NTS WERE MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS OUT OF THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT NET CURRENT ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.36.03 CRORES AND BORROWED FUNDS WERE OF RS.32.15 CRORES ON ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 6 THE OPENING DAY. ON THE CLOSING DAY OF THE YEAR, T HE BORROWED FUNDS REDUCED TO RS.22.45 CRORES. THIS FACT SHOWS THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ONLY. FURTHER, THE BORROWED FU NDS FROM THE BANK WERE AGAINST HYPOTHECATION OF THE CURRENT ASSETS AND AS SUCH WER E DIRECTLY UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. SINCE THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE INVESTME NT AND ALSO THERE WAS NO INCOME RECEIVED WHICH IS EXEMPTED FROM INCOME. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE WAS DESERVED TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D . THERE WAS NO DIVIDEND INCOME. THERE WAS NO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. NO B ANK/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS HAVE LEVIED ANY CHARGE OR DUES AS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE OBSERVATIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED HUGE AMO UNT OF DIVIDEND IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. THE CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACT AND GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION S OF HON'BLE HIGH COURTS :- (I) CIT VS. SUZLON ENERGY LIMITED (2013) 354 ITR 630 WHEREIN HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS EXPLICITLY APPROVED THE DECISION OF ITAT BY HOLDING THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NOT JU STIFIED WHERE THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS FAR EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT MAD E; (II) CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. 319 ITR 204 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SECTION 14A DOES NOT HAVE ANY APPL ICATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION AND WHERE INVESTMENTS ARE OUT OF OWN FUNDS; (III) ITAT, AHMEDABAD DECISION DATED 10.05.2013 IN THE CA SE OF DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER CO. LTD. 2013-T IOL-405-ITAT- MUM AND ITAT, MUMBAI DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHOPPE RS STOP LTD. ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 7 VS. ACIT 2011-TIOL-581-ITAT-MUM FOR THE PROPOS ITION THAT SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED WHERE THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS FAR EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT MADE; (IV) ITAT, AHMEDABAD DECISION DATED 05.12.2012 IN THE CA SE OF DCIT VS. JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ITA NO.97/AHD/2012; (V) ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. STRIDES A RCOLAB LTD. 138 ITD 323 (MUM); (VI) HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340; (VII) HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. 323 ITR 518 (P&H) FOR THE PROPOSITI ON THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WHERE THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND INCOME GENERATED. (VIII) ITAT, CHENNAI DATED 07.11.2013 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. ALLIED INVESTMENTS HOUSING P. LTD. IN ITA NO.305/MDS/2013 WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A WAS DELETED FOR THE REASO NS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY FRESH INVESTMENT DURING T HE YEAR WHICH COULD GENERATE INCOME IN FORTHCOMING YEARS. THE AS SESSEE INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER FIVE MAJOR HEADS AND NON E OF WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO EARNING OF EXEMPTION INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DIRECT NEXUS BETWEE N THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND EXEMPT INCOME; ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 8 (IX) HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD. [2014] 45 TAXMANN.COM 116 (GUJAR AT); AND (X) HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. SHIVAM MOTORS JUDGMENT DATED 05.05.2014. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. BEFO RE US, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2009-10 WHEREIN THE RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE. THE RELIANCE PLACED ON BY LD. AR ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IS N OT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AS THESE DECISIONS ARE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO RULE 8D CAME INTO OPERATION :- (I) DCIT VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER CO . LTD. 2013-TIOL- 405-ITAT-MUM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 & 200-03; (II) ITAT, MUMBAI DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHOPPERS STOP LTD. VS. ACIT 2011-TIOL-581-ITAT-MUM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 & 2007- 08; (III) ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. STRIDES A RCOLAB LTD. 138 ITD 323 (MUM) ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97; (IV) CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILIIES AND POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000; (V) CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. 323 ITR 518 (P&H) ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05; (VI) CIT VS. LAKHANI MARKETING JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.20 14 OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME DECISIONS OF ITAT WHICH HAV E BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR FOR THE YEARS WHERE RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE. AFTE R HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HOLD ITA NO.772/DEL./2013 9 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DETERMINED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXPENSES WHETHER THERE WERE ANY EXPENDITURE RELATED TO THE EARNING OF THE EXEMPTED INCOME. RULE 8D CAN BE APPLIED WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS B EEN INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPTED INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T FULFILLED THE ONUS OF RECORDING THE FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D TOWARDS THE INCOME TO BE EARNED WHICH IS EXEMPTED FROM THE TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E BY HOLDING THAT WHEN THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUND AND INVESTMENT MADE THEN NO DISALLOWANCE NEEDS TO BE MADE AS NO INTEREST BEARING FUND UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 2014 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-VI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.