M/s G.S. Autocomp Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 846/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4540 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARJINDER SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 68; 6; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ' # $ % & ' ( ) *, +, # BEFORE: SHRI SATBIR SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S G.S. AUTOCOMP PVT. LTD., G.S. ESTATE, G.T. ROAD, DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA. THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-5, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO.AACCG5774E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI HARJINDER SINGH, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA [(IN SHORT CIT(A)] DATE D 10.3.2017 ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 2 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDE R: 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON T HE FILE IN AS MUCH AS SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRA RILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESORT TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6 8 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RECEI VED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THROUGH M/S G.J. HOLDING S PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ABOVE GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM ONE M/S G.J. HOLDINGS (P) LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.75 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME REMA INING UNEXPLAINED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE AFORESAID SHARE APPLICATION MONEY DURI NG THE YEAR. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SAID INVESTOR HAD I NTRODUCED MONEY IN OTHER SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE A LSO, BEING M/S G.S. AUTO INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND M/S G.S. AUT O MOTIVE P. LTD. AND THAT DETAILED ENQUIRY HAD BEEN D ONE DURING THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE COMPANIES TO INVES TIGATE THE ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 3 GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF M/S G .J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THOSE COMPA NIES COULD NOT PROVE SATISFACTORILY THE SOURCE AND NATUR E OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND HENCE, THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDITS IN THEIR HANDS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS IN THE IMPUGNED CASE. THEREFO RE BASIS THE INVESTIGATION MADE IN THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNED CASE ALSO HELD T HE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS MAKI NG ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS UPHELD IN APPEAL BY THE LD.CIT(A). 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RAISED A SOLITARY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ADDITION, STATING THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FRAMED IN THE CA SE OF M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND OUT OF THE SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY IT DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.314.62 LACS, RS.283.86 HAD B EEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. U/S 68 OF ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 4 THE ACT AS BEING UNEXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE HELD G ENUINE. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S G.J. HO LDINGS PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y 2010-11, U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, D ATED 30.12.2017 WAS PLACED BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE INVESTOR DURING THE YEAR HAD BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED ITS HANDS, IT COULD NOT AGAIN BE TREATE D SO IN TREATED IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. IT WAS CONTE NTED THAT IT STOOD TO REASON THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE INCOME OF M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. ONLY AND, THEREFORE, CO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. F URTHER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE FATE O F THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT . LTD., IN APPEAL, WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE SINCE IF IT WAS U PHELD THE ADDITION FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINE D SOURCES AND IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ADDITION WAS DEL ETED IN THE HANDS OF M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., IN THAT C ASE ALSO, THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. WOULD STAND ESTABLISHED AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES ALSO, THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 5 6. THE LD. DR, THOUGH, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT ADMITTED TO THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR HAD BEEN MADE IN ITS HAND S AS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FA CT THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75 LACS, TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., IS NOT DISPUTED. ALSO THE SAME HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED SINCE INVESTME NT MADE BY THE SAID COMPANY DURING THE YEAR IN THE SIS TER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E. M/S G.S AUTOMOTIVES WAS FOUND UNEXPLAINED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT DONE OF TH E SISTER CONCERN. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED IN T HE CASE OF THE SISTER CONCERN I.E. M/S G.S AUTOMOTIVES, AS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND WE FIN D THAT THE AO TREATED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY M/S G.J HOLDI NGS AS UNEXPLAINED ON FINDING CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK OF TH E INVESTOR BEFORE MAKING OF INVESTMENT, THE SOURCE OF WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED, AND ON NOTING THAT NIL RETURN OF INCOME ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 6 WAS FILED BY THE INVESTOR. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS UNABLE TO DISLODGE THOSE FINDINGS . 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTE D A DETAIL SHOWING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OF THE INVESTOR, M/S G.J HOLDINGS, UNDER: DATE AMOUNT PARTY 21/04/2009 1000000.00 FROM RITU MERCANTILE P. LTD. 15/06/2009 650000.00 FROM SURINDER SINGH RYAIT 15/06/2009 286200.00 FROM DALWINDER KAUR 19/06/2009 425000.00 FROM AMARJIT KAUR 19/06/2009 1250000.00 FROM JASBIR SINGH RYAIT 22/09/2009 5000000.00 FROM RITU MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. 02/12/2009 1890000.00 FROM MADAD LEASING PVT. LTD 08/12/2009 1610000.00 FROM DISHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD 08/02/2010 5400000.00 FROM STAR GLOBAL - 08/02/2010 3000000.00 FROM SHIVAM LEASING PVT. LTD. 9. UNDOUBTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE ABOVE SOURCE TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, WE FIND, THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR M/S G.J. HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., HAD RECE IVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY/SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.314.62 LACS OUT OF WHICH RS.283.86 HAS BEEN TREA TED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN ITS HANDS AS ITS OWN INCOME WHILE THE BALANCE HAS BEEN TREATED ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 7 AS EXPLAINED. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN ITS CASE WE FIND THAT M/S G.J HOLDINGS HAD ADMIT TEDLY RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES AS MENTIONED BY THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: S. NO. NAME AMOUNTS RECEIVED DURING THE AY 2010 - 11 1 SH. JASBIR SINGH RYAIT 14.70 LACS 2 SH. SURINDER SINGH RYAIT 8.45 LACS 3 SMT. DALWINDER KAUR RYAIT 3.11 LACS 4 SMT. AMARJEET KAUR RYAIT 4.50 LACS 5 M/S RITU MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. 62.86 LACS 6 M/S BALBIR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 36.00 LACS 8 M/S MADAD LEASING PVT. LTD. 136.90 LACS 9 M/S DISHA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. 16. 10 LACS TOTAL RS. 3 14.62 LACS 10. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THAT IT WAS THE SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY M/S G.J HOLDINGS ,WHICH WAS DE POSITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IN TURN WAS INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE M/S G.J HOLDINGS WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID SHARE CAPITAL , ADMITTEDLY, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND HENCE THE INCOME OF M/S G.J HOLDINGS. HAVING BEEN HELD AS THE INCOME OF M/S G.J HOLDINGS, THE SAME, THEREFORE WE AGREE WITH THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE TRE ATED AGAIN AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE A LSO, ON INVESTMENT MADE BY M/S G.J HOLDINGS. WE ALSO ARE IN ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 8 AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FATE OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE INVESTOR, M/S G.J HOLDINGS, IN APPEAL WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE ISSUE SINCE IF THE ADDITION IS DE LETED, THE SOURCE STANDS EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE INVESTO R, WHILE IN CASE THE ADDITION IS UPHELD IT WOULD TANTAMOUN T TO HOLDING THE SAME UNEXPLAINED IN TWO HANDS, AS HELD ABOVE BY US, WHICH IS NOT TENABLE . IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.75 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UND ER: 2. THAT SHE WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARI LY UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,26,102/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT BY RESORT TO SEC. 36(1)(III). 12. BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE MAJOR ADDITIONS IN LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.1,74,51,228/-. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.1,97,05,9 42/- ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 9 AND UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,84,77 6/- DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ESTABLIS H WHETHER THE LAND WAS PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS ALSO AS KED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE CAPITALIZED F OR CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS AS WELL AS ADVANCES FOR CA PITAL EXPENDITURE AS SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET. AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT, THE A.O. CALC ULATED THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) OF TH E ACT @12% PA WHICH COMES TO RS.9,26,102/- AND ADDED TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTING IN DETAIL THE EXACT NATURE OF FUNDS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND A LSO CLEARLY STATING THAT TO THE EXTENT INTEREST BEARING LOANS WERE USED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, THE INTEREST RELATING T O THE SAME HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,17,185/- UNDER THE HEAD EXPENDITURE PENDING FOR CAPITALIZATION. TH E LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE. ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 10 14. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF FUNDS UTILIZED IN MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND HAD ALSO POIN TED OUT THAT TO THE EXTENT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE USED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT, THE INTEREST RELATING TO TH E SAME HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAS REPRODUCED AT PARA 5.2 OF CIT(A)S ORDER AS UNDER: 5.2. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FILED SUBMISSION DATE D 04.06.2015 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER.- VIDE THIS GROUND THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS AGITATING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 9, 26,702/- OUT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT BY CAPITALIZING THE SAME AS CERTAI N ADVANCES WERE MADE WHEREAS THE ASSETS HAVE NOT YET BEEN ACQU IRED / PUT TO USE. THE LD. AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 43 TO 49 AS PER PARA 5 OF THE ORDER. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON 28.02.2013 DID NOT FIND FAVOUR OF THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH CAPITAL ASSETS WERE ACQUIRED /CA PITAL ADVANCES WERE MADE, WERE OUT OF THE CASH CREDIT ACC OUNT IN WHICH INTEREST BEARING FUNDS/ NON-INTEREST BEAR ING FUNDS SUCH AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, BUSINESS REALIZ ATION ETC. AND THE DEMAND LOAN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. NO SPECIFI C LOAN WAS EVER RAISED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR MAKING INV ESTMENT IN THE CAPITAL ASSETS AS WELL AS GIVING ADVANCES TO TH E PARTIES FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ITEMS. HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD RAISED A DEMAND LOAN FROM BANK AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.1.60 CR. AND 0.75 CR. , WHICH STAND CREDITED TO THE CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLAN T. THUS THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS. 2.35 CRS. IN CASH CREDIT ACCOUN T, OUT OF WHICH SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 2.33 CRS. HAS BEEN USED TOW ARDS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND CAPITAL ADVANCES . THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD ALREADY CAPITALIZED THE AMOUN T OF INTEREST RELATABLE TO THE DEMAND LOAN TO THE TUNE O F RS. 6,17,185/- UNDER THE HEAD 'EXPENDITURE PENDING FOR CAPITALIZAT ION'. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD . AO HAD MADE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 11 9,26,702/- WHEREAS THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ALREAD Y CAPITALIZED INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,17,185/- THAT TOO RESPECT TO THE FUNDS RAISED BOTH INTEREST BEARING AND INTER EST FREE USED FOR CREATION OF CAPITAL ASSETS AS WELL AS MAKING AD VANCES ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. FURTHER IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A PPELLANT WAS USING ITS CASH CREDIT LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS EXISTING BUSINESS I.E. TRADING OF AUTO PARTS. AS SUCH THE IN TEREST WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.4,84.776/- IN TITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT MAINLY RELATING TO ITS EXISTING AC TIVITIES AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,26, 702 /- AS MADE BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT DOES IN WARRANTED IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES. RELEVANT COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF DEMAND LOAN, EXPENSES PENDING FOR CAPITALIZATION, BALANCE SHEET, LOANS AND ADVANC ES SCHEDULE ETC. ARE BEING SUBMITTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO GROUND FOR THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WHICH SHOULD BE DELETED IN THE AP PELLANT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLANT COMPANIES APPEAL MA KINDL Y BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY.' 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DREW O UR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DECIDE D ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE, RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, TOTALLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND AND THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAD NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AT HAND AT ALL. 16. THE LD. DR FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AT HAND AND PLEADED, THEREFOR E, THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A). ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 12 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. UNDOU BTEDLY, THE ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.9,26,102/- U/S 36 (1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE NOTED, HAD GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, AS TO WHY NO DISA LLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE EXPLAINING THAT IT HAD ALREADY DISAL LOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED FOR ACQUIRING CAPITAL A SSET AMOUNTING TO RS.6,17,185/- AND THAT NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED SINCE THE BALANCE FUNDS USED WERE ITS OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND, HAS GIVEN HER FINDINGS ON A TOTALLY DIFFERE NT ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE U/ S 14A OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) H AS COMPLETELY FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AT HAND, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE C IT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING AND VERIF YING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN THIS REGARD. NEEDLESS T O ADD THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ITA NO.846/CHD/2017 A.Y.2010-11 13 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- & ' ( ) * (SATBIR SINGH GODARA ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ,# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .& /DATED: 30 TH MAY, 2019 * * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR