IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 850/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. INVENTURE GROWTH & SECURITIES LTD. 201, VIRAJ TOWER, NEAR LANDMARK WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI- 400 064 VS. CIT(A)-8 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :-AAACI 2044 K ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARESH VAKHARIA REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 03.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.08.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) -8, MUMBAI DATED 26.11.2012 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,27,490/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. THE LD.CIT(A) COMMITTED ERROR IN NOT APPRECIATING Y OUR APPELLANTS DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON FACTS AND ALSO COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS CITED BEFORE, INC LUDING THE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT INCOME AND ALLOCATED RS.1,00,000/- AS EXPENSE TOWARDS EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME ON AD HOC BASIS. HOWEVER, THE AO COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISION OF RULE 8D AT ITA NO. 850/MUM/2013 M/S. INVENTURE GROWTH & SECURITIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 RS.6,27,490/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A), BY FOLLOWI NG THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE EARLIER A.Y. 2008-09, DISMISSED THE GROUND OF A PPEAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE EARLIER A.Y. 2008-09 CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUN T INVOLVED IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ELABORAT E SUBMISSION CITING VARIOUS DECISIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND PLEADED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS UNWARRANTED. THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE TH E LD.CIT(A) IS PART OF THE RECORDS AND THE SAME IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 29 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY PASSED THE I MPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THA T IT IS JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR READJU DICATION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FOR PASSING REASONED ORD ER. WE DIRECT AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 08.08.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR I BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.