LAXMAN NAINANI, Jaipur V. JCIT, Kota

ITA 99/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5319 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 244A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U; KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI LALIET K UMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 99/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 . SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI, PROP. M/S. NAINANI MEDICO, NEAR POST OFFICE, RAMPURA BAZAR, LADPURA, KOTA. CUKE VS. THE JCIT, RANGE-2, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAGPH 9024 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 102/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 . THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. CUKE VS. SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI, PROP. M/S. NAINANI MEDICO, NEAR POST OFFICE, RAMPURA BAZAR, LADPURA, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAGPH 9024 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS ROSHANTA KUMARI MEENA (JCIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/05/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT ARISING AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA DATED 30.11. 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 2 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT 1. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN TH E ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 29.12.2011 ARE BAD IN LAW AND ON F ACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. RS. 3,06,615/-: THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,06, 615/- OUT OF RS. 17,91,852/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST P AID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOANS AND CLAIMED AS EXPENSES FROM BUSINESS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A), IS CONTRARY TO THE PR OVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED IN F ULL. 3. RS. 14,85,237/- : THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS W ELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,85,23 7/- AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWED F UNDS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE DISALLOWAN CE SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A), IS CONTRARY TO TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETE D IN FULL. 4. RS. 1,58,164/- : THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 85,305/- OUT OF CAR EXPENSES OF RS. 8,53,054/-, RS. 13,085/- OUT OF CAR INSURANCE O F RS. 65,428/- AND RS. 59,774/- OUT OF CAR DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,98,873/- TOTALING TO RS. 1,58,164/-. THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A), IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. RS. 23,155/-: THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,155/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES (20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES). THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A), AR E CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 6. THE LD. AO FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D OF TH E ACT AND AS ALSO IN WITHDRAWING OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT. THE AP PELLANT TOTALLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY OF CHARGING AND WITHDRAWAL OF ANY SUC H INTEREST. THE INTEREST SO CHARGED/WITHDRAWN, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A), KOTA HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 17,91,85 2/- ON THE GROUND THAT OUT OF THIS, RS. 14,85,237/- IS DELETED BEING DOUBLE ADDITION AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3,06,615/- IS TREATED AS US ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) THAT THERE IS DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS. 14,85,237/- IS NOT BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATIO N OF FACTS OF THIS CASE SINCE ADDITION OF RS. 17,91,852/- AND RS. 14,8 5,237/- WERE MADE ON ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE GROUNDS. FURTHER , THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3,06,615/- IS TREATED AS USED FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS IS NOT BASED ON ANY REASON . 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSI NG GROUND OF APPEAL BEARING NO. 1, 2 & 4, AND IS PRESSING THE GROUND NOS. 3, 5 & 6. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 4 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. NOW WE SHALL BE ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS. 3, 5 & 6 ONLY. 4. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,85,237/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWED FUNDS. 4.1. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHO LESALE MEDICINES DEALER IN THE NAME OF M/S. NAINANI MEDICO, RUNNING OF HOSTEL IN T HE NAME OF RAJ RAJESHWAR, PURCHASE, DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERT IES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG RS. 74,23,320/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT A ND THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO REPLY TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE SERVED ON HIM ALONG W ITH THE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS 4 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT FILED THE REPLY TO THE NOTICE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF T HE PRESENT CONTROVERSY, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE REPLY DA TED 10.10.2011 AS UNDER :- (5) EXPENSES OF INTEREST/BANK CHARGES DEBITED IN R AJ RAJESHWAR A/C. THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUSINESSES WHOLESALE MEDICAL IN THE NAME OF M/S. NAINANI MEDICO, HOSTEL BUSINESS-M/S. RAJ RAJESHWAR, PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. SANDIPAN AND WA S ALSO DOING PROPERTY BUSINESS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL NAME, LAXMAN NA INANI. FOR ALL THESE BUSINESS, HE NEEDED FUNDS AND THEREFORE TAKEN OVER THE LOANS FROM BANKS AS WELL AS FROM MARKET ON INTEREST. LOAN FRO M MARKET TAKEN IN HIS OWN NAME LAXMAN NAINANI AND INTEREST PAID ON TH E SAID LOANS WERE TRANSACTED THROUGH HIS SAVING B ANK ACCOUNT. THE LO AN FUNDS ARE USED FOR THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE INTEREST PAYMENT ON THE SAME WAS ALSO TO BE CLAIMED/DEDUCTED FROM BUSINESS INCOME. IN THE EARLIER YEAR, PROPERTY PURCHASE SALE BUSINESS WAS DONE AND THEREF ORE THESE EXPENSES I.E. INTEREST, BANK CHARGES ETC. WERE DEBI TED IN PROPERTY BUSINESS.DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE ASSESSEE NEEDED FUNDS AND HIS INVESTMENT IN RAJ RAJESHWAR HOSTEL WA S OF RS. 41,00,000/- AND PROFIT OF THE YEAR WAS ALSO ACCOUNT ED THEREIN, HE TREATED THE CAPITAL AS WITHDRAWN AND LOANS ALSO CON SIDERED FOR THE SAME. THEREFORE, INTEREST PAYMENT ON LOAN WAS DEDUC TED FROM THE SAID INCOME AT THE TIME OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE Y EAR FOR FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN. RELEVANT PARA OF REPLY DATED 16.09.2011 AS UNDER :- (2) EXPENSES FOR EDUCATION OF KRISHNA NAINANI (SON ) HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS OWN CAPITAL/SUR PLUS PROFIT OF THE YEAR, AND THEREFORE QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST OR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL DOES NOT ARISE. RELEVANT PARA OF REPLY DATED 22.12.2011 AS UNDER : - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE ASSESS EE NEEDED FUNDS AND HIS INVESTMENT IN RAJ RAJESHWAR HOSTEL WAS OF R S. 41,00,000/- AND PROFIT OF THE YEAR WAS ALSO ACCOUNTED THEREIN, HE T REATED THE CAPITAL AS 5 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT WITHDRAWN AND LOANS ALSO CONSIDERED FOR THE SAME. T HEREFORE, INTEREST PAYMENT ON LOAN WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE SAID INCOME A T THE TIME OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE YEAR FOR FILING OF INCO ME TAX RETURN. RELEVANT PARA OF REPLY DATED 15.06.2012 AS UNDER :- (I) PAYMENT OF INTEREST RS. 17,91,852/- HAS NOT BE EN DEDUCTED FROM RAJ RAJESHWAR A/C, BUT IT IS DEBITED IN TOTAL INCOME OF BUSINESS IN HIS PROPRIETARYSHIP. COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME ENCLOSED WHICH CLERLY REVEALS THE ACTUAL FACTS. NET INCOME FROM NAINANI MEDICO RS. 8210194 NET INCOME FROM RAJ RAJESHWAR RS. 781113 TOTAL : RS. 8991307 LESS : INTEREST & BANK CHARGES DEBITED PERSONAL CONSOLIDATED A/C RS.1791852 NET INCOME FROM PROPRIETARY BUSINESS RS.7199456 (II) ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLES ALE MEDICINES, RUNNING OF HOTELS/HOSTELS AND PURCHASE DEVELOPMENT & SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS. THER EFORE, HE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES I.E. PURCHASE OF PLOTS, FLATS, BOOKING OF FLATS AND ALSO CONSTRUCTION OF HOSTEL ON PLOTS. HE HAS TAKEN LOANS FROM BANK AS CASH CREDIT LIMIT IN THE NAME OF NAINANI MEDICOS, HOUSING LOANS ON THE PLOTS/FLATS BOOKED AND ALSO FR OM OTHER PERSONS. LOAN FROM BANK AGAINST C/C LIMIT IS CREDITED IN NAI NANI MEDICOS WHILE OTHER LOANS ARE CREDITED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS /CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY INTEREST IS ALSO DEBITED IN THE CON CERNED ACCOUNTS. AS THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF ALL THESE BUSINESS AS H E DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE IN ANY LOAN AS WELL AS INTEREST PAYME NT. ALL THE LOANS WERE TAKEN FOR THE DIFFERENT BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY BE ING PROPRIETOR OF ALL THE BUSINESS, PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS ALSO FOR THE BUSINESS AND HENCE DEBITED/DEDUCTED THE SAME FROM BUSINESS INCOME. NO LOAN IS PERSONAL LOAN AND INTEREST PAID WAS ALSO FOR THE BUSINESS AN D ALL BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS EXPENSES. INTEREST P AYMENT IS DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER DOCUMENTS. IT IS VERY HUMBLY SU BMITTED THAT INCOME FROM ALL BUSINESSES ARE TO BE CLUBBED AND EX PENSES OR LOSSES FROM BUSINESS ARE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST PAYMENT 6 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT OF RS. 1791852/- MADE FOR THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY A ND WRONGLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS DE BITED FROM HOSTEL BUSINESS ONLY MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXP ENSES AND ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT SHOULD BE DELETED. (III) THE LEARNED JOINT COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN D ISALLOWING RS. 1485237/- OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENT FOR THE INTEREST FREE AMOUNT GIVEN TO NAINANI BUILDERS (P) LTD. IN THIS REGARD IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF THE BUSINESS NAMED M/S. N AINANI MEDICOS KOTA AND MOST OF HIS CAPITAL HAS BEEN INVESTED BY H IM IN THE SAID ENTITY. AS HE INTENDED TO WITHDRAW HIS CAPITAL FROM THE SAID BUSINESS, HE TOOK OVER THE CHEQUES FROM THE SAID FIRM AND DEP OSITED IN HIS PERSONAL SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH HE IS ENTIT LED AND EMPOWERED. NO LAW OR AUTHORITY CAN BIND AN INDIVIDU AL TO KEEP HIS INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR BUSINESS OR NOT TO WITHD RAW HIS CAPITAL FROM THE BUSINESS AND USE IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE LIKES. ASSESSEES CAPITAL IN THE SAID BUSINESS IN THE OPEN ING IS RS. 25845675/- AND IN THE CLOSING OF THE YEAR IS RS. 27905234/- WH ICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO NAINANI BUILDERS (P) LT D. YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE CAPITAL (MENTIO NED SUPRA) ONLY RS. 13200000/- WHICH IS LESS THAN 50% OF THE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO NAINANI BUILDERS (P) LTD. AND IN S UCH A CASE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE AS HELD BY THE COURTS/HIGHER AUTHORITIES IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. - CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITY AND POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - VIT VS. BHARAT TELEVENTURES LTD. 2010 TIOL 51 DELHI HIGH COURT - AHUJA PLATINUM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. VS. JCIT ITAT MU MBAI. - ACIT CIRCLE-1, KOTA VS. RAM KISHAN VERMA APPEAL NO. 589/JP/2011 ORDER DATED 30.10.2011 ITAT JAIPUR. THE AO IN PARA 2.2 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER : - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE EXPENSES MENTIONED ABOVE ARE DEDUCTIBLE OUT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM THE HOSTEL FOR STUDENTS NAMELY HOSTEL RAJ RAJESHWAR. IN CASE T HESE EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO LOANS RAISED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND F OR HOSTEL OR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOSTEL, ONLY THEN THESE CAN BE ALLO WED AGAINST INCOME FROM HOSTEL. THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE AL LOWED AGAINST HOSTEL INCOME. THIS WILL RESULT IN DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17,91,852/- (1773127 + 18725). 7 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT THEREAFTER, THE AO WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO M/S. NAINANI BUILDERS HAS HELD AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A NY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF RS. 1.38 CRORE TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRO VE THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN FUNDS BORROWED ON INTEREST AND ADVANC ES GIVEN FREE OF ANY INTEREST. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVAN CES TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AFTER TRANSFERRING THE FUNDS FROM CASH CRED IT ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK TO HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT TO CIRCUM VENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III). THEREFORE, DISALL OWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN WILL BE MADE OUT OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS. THE DISALLOWANCE W ORKS OUT OF RS. 14,85,237/- AS PER CALCULATION BELOW, TAKING THE RA TE OF INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM :- I) ON OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 73.00 LAC RS. 8,76,000/- II) ON RS. 45.00 LAC FROM 25.04.08 TO 31.03.09 RS. 5,04 ,493/- III) ON RS. 6.5 LAC FROM 26.06.08 TO 31.03.09. RS. 59 ,621/- IV) ON RS. 7.5 LAC FROM 01.10.08 TO 31.03.09 RS. 45, 123/- TOTAL : RS.14,85,237/- THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,85,237/- WILL BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS H ELD AS UNDER :- GROUND NOS. 1 & 2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING, AS SESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO VERIFIED THE DETAILS FILED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST AND OTHER EXPENSES AG AINST ITS ENTIRE INCOME AND NOT AGAINST HOSTEL INCOME. SECONDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEPARATELY DISALLOWE D INTEREST OF RS. 1485237/-. THIS RESULTED IN DOUBLE ADDITION. 8 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THE MONEY TO ITS SISTER C ONCERN WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST. THE MONEY WAS ROUTED THROUGH HIS SAVING ACCOUNT ALT HOUGH THE ULTIMATE SOURCE WAS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. THUS AS SESSEE DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RS. 14,85,237/- RELATED TO MONEY BORROWED BUT USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE ADDITIO N OF RS. 17,91,852/-. [WHICH WAS CLAIMED AGAINST ENTIRE INCOME, OUT OF TH IS RS. 14,85,237/- IS DELETED BEING DOUBLE ADDITION AND REMAINING AMOU NT OF RS. 3,06,615/- IS TREATED AS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BU SINESS.] THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE, THEREFORE PARTLY ALL OWED. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. A/R FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- 6.1. THIS YEAR, THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. THE INTEREST BEARING BORROWINGS MADE IN THE CONSOLIDATED A/C, AS AFORESAID, THUS, WERE MAINLY USED IN M/S NAINANI MEDICOS FOR PURPOSES OF ITS BUS INESSES AND PARTLY USED IN M/S RAJ RAJESHWAR HOSTEL, IT IS FOR THESE REASONS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAI D OF RS.17,73,127/- TOGETHER WITH THE BANK CHARGES OF RS .18,725/- TOTALING TO RS.17,91,852/- (THOUGH DEBITED IN CONSOLIDATED PERS ONAL ACCOUNT) WERE CLAIMED AGAINST THE INCOME FROM NAINANI MEDICOS OF RS.82,10 ,194/- AND INCOME FROM M/S RAJ RAJESHWAR MANSION-KOTA OF RS.7,81,113/-, TOTALI NG TO RS.89,91,107/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED A/C-BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 SHALL REVEAL THAT ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN INTE REST BEARING BORROWINGS UNDER THE HEAD LOANS & BORROWINGS (OTHERS) OF RS.39,13,224/- AND LOANS & BORROWINGS (RELATIVES) RS.1,85,07,613/- TOTALING TO RS. 2,24,2 0,827/- ON WHICH THE SUBJECTED INTEREST OF RS. 17,73,127/- WAS PAID. THE ASSET SIDE SHOWS THE UTILIZATION BEING TOWARDS THE CAPITAL INVESTED IN M/S NAINANI MEDICOS , KOTA OF RS. 1,73,86,063/- AND 9 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT IN RAJ RAJESHWAR MANSION HOSTEL RS. 41,07,384/- TOT ALING TO RS. 2,14,93,447. THERE WAS NO MAJOR ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSETS THIS YEAR (PB 37). THEREFORE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST & BANK CHAR GES OF RS. 17,91,852/- (THOUGH DEBITED IN CONSOLIDATED A/C) WERE CLAIMED A GAINST THE INCOME FROM NAINANI MEDICOS RS.82,10,194/- AND INCOME FROM M/S RAJ RAJE SHWAR MANSION-KOTA RS.7,81,113/- TOTALING TO RS.89,91,307 /- , IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME . FURTHER, THE OTHER DEBTORS OF RS. 1.42 CR INCLUDES MAINLY NAINANI BUILDERS PVT. LTD FOR RS. 1.32 CR, DEALT WITH SEPARATELY BY THE A O AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,85,237/- WAS MADE. THUS, WHAT TRANSPIRES IS THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE THROUGH THE TWO PROPR IETARIES, NAMELY, NAINANI MEDICOS & THE HOSTEL BUSINESS. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO AVAILED INTEREST BEARING LOANS FROM THE BANK THROUGH CC A/C IN THE NAINANI MEDICOS AND ALSO IN THE HOSTEL BUSINESS, BUT THESE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO/ TAKE N IN THE PROPRIETARIES DIRECTLY. THE FACTS ARE NOT DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE AVAILED INTEREST BEARING LOANS. IT IS ALSO NOT DENIED THAT THE LOANS TAKEN WERE UTILIZ ED ONLY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THERE WAS NO PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED THEREIN (EXC EPT THE MATTER RELATING TO ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S NAINANI BUILDERS PVT. LTD. WHI CH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH SEPARATELY). THIS WAY, THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS H AVING BEEN UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY, HENCE THE SAME WERE FULLY ALLOWABLE U /S 36(1)(III) IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER ANY INCOME IS GENERATED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS/ BUSINESSES OR NOT (THOUGH HANDSOME PROFITS HAVE BEEN DECLARED HERE) A S HELD IN THE CASE OF MADHAV PRASAD JATIA VS. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 0200 (SC). IT IS SETTLED THAT ACCOUNTING ENTRIES ARE NOT DECI SIVE OF THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION. KINDLY REFER KEDAR NATH JUTE V/S C IT 82 ITR 363 (SC) AND SATLAJ COTTON MILLS 116 ITR 1 (SC). THE ONLY CONFUSION OR THE MISCONCEPTION WHICH APPE ARS TO BE PURPORTED ON THE PART OF THE AO, WAS THAT HE READ THE CLAIM OF I NTEREST OF RS.17,91,852/- AS MADE ONLY AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOSTEL RAJ RAJESHWAR O F RS.7,81,113/- WHICH, IS NOT A 10 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT CORRECT FACT. WHEREAS SUCH CLAIM (RS.17,91,852/-) W AS MADE AGAINST THE INCOMES OF BOTH THE BUSINESSES TOTALING TO RS. RS.89,91,307/- ,AS AFORESAID. KINDLY REFER COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME . A PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF C OURSE, MAY SHOW THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE ONLY AGAINST HOSTEL INCOME BUT THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM OF THE SOFTWARE. HAD THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE THE COMPUTATI ON MANUALLY, THIS CLAIM COULD HAVE BEEN MADE JOINTLY AGAINST THE PROFITS OF BOTH THE CONCERN. HOWEVER, THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION WAS RS. 72,22,622/- WHICH IS THE FINAL FIGURE OF TH IS HEAD FORMING PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. EVEN ASSUMING, THE ASSESSEE WRONG LY MADE A CLAIM OF RS.17,91,852/- AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE HOSTEL M/S RAJ RAJESHWAR MANSION ONLY, THAT DOES NOT CREATE AN ESTOPPEL AGAINST HIM TO CON TEND THAT THE ENTIRE CLAIM WAS MADE AGAINST THE PROFITS OF BOTH THE PROPRIETARY BU SINESSES, MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE UTILIZED IN THOSE T WO CONCERNS, AS STATED ABOVE. THE AO HAS NOWHERE DENIED THAT THE INTEREST BEARIN G BORROWINGS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN DIFFERENT ACCOUNT S VIZ THE TWO PROPRIETARIES OR IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT WAS USED INTERCHANGEABLY. IN OTHER WORDS, SUCH LOANS TAKEN IN NAINANI MEDICOS WERE UTILIZED TOWARDS RAJ RAJESHWAR OR VICE VERSA BUT ULTIMATELY WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HENC E INTEREST THEREON WAS FULLY ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. SINCE IT WAS D IFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MATHEMATICALLY DIVIDE THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH INTER EST BEARING FUNDS TOWARDS THE TWO PROPRIETARIES ON DAY TO DAY BASIS BECAUSE OF A FREQ UENT TRANSFER OF THE FUNDS IN BETWEEN, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG IF SUCH A CLAIM WA S MADE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED INCOME FROM THE SAID TWO PROPRIETARIES . ALSO THE AO HAS NOWHERE ALLEGED THAT THE LOANS WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSES (EXCEPT THAT THE ADVANCES MADE TO M/S NAINANI BUILDERS PVT. LTD). TH E CIT(A) HAVING HELD INTEREST OF RS. 3.06 LAC USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE MUST HAVE HE LD THE SAME FOR RS. 14.85 LAC. THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THIS EXTENT AS MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING, THE SAME WAS MADE TWICE. K INDLY REFER (PG 4 & 7 OF THE 11 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT AO). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY, THE AO HAS GIVE N AN IMPRESSION, AS IF, THE ALLEGED DIVERSION OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WAS TO NAINANI BUI LDERS PVT LTD FROM NAINANI MEDICOS. WHEREAS IN FACT, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF INTER EST PAYMENT OF RS. 17,91,852/- (OUT OF RS.67.75 LAC) WAS DEBITED & CLAIMED IN THE CONSOLIDATED A/C ONLY WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUNDS AS UNSECURED LOANS. IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF NAINANI MEDICOS THERE APPEARS NO DEBTOR IN NAME OF NAINANI BUILDERS P. LTD. THE SUBJECTED AMOUNT OF RS. 1.32 CR ADVANCED TO NAI NANI BUILDERS PVT. LTD (NBPL) HAS ALSO COME FROM THE SAID CONSOLIDATED A/C ONLY A S EVIDENT FROM THE SCHEDULE OF OTHER DEBTORS OF RS.1.42 CRORE ANNEXED TO THE BALA NCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FROM THE CC A/C WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE SB A/C I.E. CONSOLIDATED A/C MAY BE FACTUALLY CORRECT BUT IGNORING THE OTHER FACTS IN AS MUCH AS FROM A BARE PERUSAL O F THE CAPITAL A/C OF M/S NAINANI MEDICOS , IT SHALL REVEAL THAT RS. 2.86 CR WERE TRANSFERRED T O THE SB A/C OF CONSOLIDATED A/C WHEREAS AT THE SAME TIME, THE FUND S OF RS.2.75 CR WERE TRANSFERRED BACK FROM THE SAID VERY SB A/C. THUS, VIRTUALLY AMO UNT OF SECURED LOAN OF NAINANI MEDICOS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE CONSOLIDATED A/ S AND WERE USED THERE ONLY. THIS WAY THE AO COULD NOT PROVE EVEN A NEXUS. SINCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,91,852/- IS THE CLAIM M ADE IN THE CONSOLIDATED A/C AND THE AO HAS ALSO CHARGED THE NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS . 14,85,237/- ON THE SAID ALLEGED ADVANCE TO NAINANI BUILDERS PVT LTD., HENCE THIS WA Y, IT IS A CASE OF DOUBLE ADDITION IN AS MUCH AS THE AO, ONE HAND HAS DISALLOWED RS. 1 7,91,852/- AND AT THE SAME TIME HAS ALSO MADE A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 14,85 ,237 /-, BY COMPUTING INTEREST @ 12% ON RS. 1.32 CR TO NBPL ON THE OTHER. THE CIT(A) HAVING NOTED THIS FACT, THEREFORE, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HAVING DELETED AT LEAST THE DOUBLE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,85,237/-. OUR DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) ARE STRONGLY RELIED UPON AND HENCE KINDLY BE CONSIDERED. 12 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST ON RS.1.32 CRORE ADVANCED INTEREST FREE T O M/S NAINANI BUILDERS (P) LTD. THE AO WANTED THE ASSESSEE TO CHARGE NOTIONAL INTER EST IGNORING FIRSTLY, THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO C HARGE ANY INTEREST THEREON AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY R ECEIVED SOME INTEREST] BUT NOT DECLARED AND SECONDLY, THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT INCOME TAX IS A TAX ON REAL INCOME AND NOT ON NOTIONAL INCOME. WHEN NEITHER ANY INTEREST ACCRUED NOR RECEIVED, THERE CANNOT BE A NOTIONAL INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT HAS LONG BACK PROPOUNDED THIS PRINCIPLE IN THE CASES OF CIT V/S SHOORJI VALLABHDAS & CO. 46 ITR 144 (SC), POONA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. 57 ITR 521 (SC) AND THEREAFTER, GODHARA ELECTRIC CO. 225 ITR 746 (SC) , WHICH ARE A FEW ONLY OUT OF SEVERAL SUCH DECISIONS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SPECIFICA LLY SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 16.09.2011 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING HUGE INTEREST FREE CAPITAL. KINDLY REFER PG-4 OF THE AO. MOREOVER TO SUPPORT, COPIES O F THE BALANCE SHEET WITH SCHEDULE OF CONSOLIDATED A/C WERE SUBMITTED. STILL IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THERE WAS A HUGE INTEREST FREE CAPITAL OF RS.2,79,05,234/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS IN THE CONSOLIDATED A/C , THERE WAS AN OPEN ING BALANCE OF RS 2,58,45,674.67/- AND CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 2,79,05 ,234/- , OUT OF WHICH ONLY, AMOUNT OF RS.1.32 CRORE, WHICH IS LESS THAN 50%, WA S ADVANCED TO M/S NAINANI BUILDERS (P) LTD. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE ASSESSEE IS HAVI NG SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS, THERE WILL A PRESUMPTION THAT THE INTEREST F REE FUNDS HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT OF THE SAME AND HENCE, NO INTEREST CAN BE DISALLOWED. KINDLY REFER ACIT VS. RAM KISHAN VERMA (2012) 143 TTJ 1 (JP) FOLLOWING CIT V/ S RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOMBAY) DATED 09.01.2009 HOLDING IN PARA 10 THAT 10. ------------- THE PRINCIPLE THEREFORE WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR L OANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE O UT OF INTEREST-FREE FUND GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INT EREST-FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS.---------. 13 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT FOLLOWING EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. V/S CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC). THE HON`BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RECENTLY AFFIRMED THE HON`BLE ITAT ORDER IN RAM KISHAN VERMA (SUPRA) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.07.201 5 IN DBITA 12/2012 & DBITA NO. 9/2013 FOR AY 2005-06 & 2008-09 WHEREIN, THE RE LEVANT PARTS APPEARS IN PARAS 12 & 13. ABSENCE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY CANNOT BE GROUND. THE CASE BY AO ARE DULY CONSIDERED IN THIS DECISION. THE LD. A/R IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- CIT V/S BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD. (2011) 51 DTR 98/33 1 ITR 502 (DEL) CIT V/S RADICO KHAITAN LTD. (2005) 194 CTR 451/274 ITR 354 (ALL) (HC) SMT. TARA DEVI V/S ITO (2000) 68 TTJ 0361 (JODH) (T RIB) THE LD. A/R THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 6.2. THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND BE FORE LD. CIT (A) IS FULL OF CONTRADICTION. ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS CLA IMING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THE SAME HAS BEE N UTILIZED FOR GIVING TO THE SISTER CONCERN AND EVEN THE ABSENCE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIEN CY CANNOT BE A GROUND TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO STATING IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS AVAILED THE INTEREST BEARING LOANS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOANS WERE UTILIZED ONLY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THERE WAS NO PERSONAL ELE MENT IS INVOLVED THEREIN. IN OUR VIEW, BOTH THE PLEAS OF AVAILABILITY OF INTERES T FREE FUNDS AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND TAKING LOAN AND USING IT FOR THE COMME RCIAL PURPOSES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THEREFORE IF THE PLEA OF AVAIL ABILITY O F INTEREST FREE FUNDS IS ACCEPTED, THE OTHER PLEA OF USING THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS BY T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN 14 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT VIEW THEREOF, IN OUR VIEW, A CLEAR CUT FINDING IS R EQUIRED FROM THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE DEEM IT APPROPRIA TE TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE RECORD AND DOCUMENT S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE HIS CLEAR CUT FINDING AS TO THE NATURE OF THE FUNDS WHETHER THE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TRANSFERRING TO THE SI STER CONCERN WERE THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS OR THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IF THE AO COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FUNDS GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN WERE OF THE ASSES SEE, THEN THE AO WILL BE GUIDED BY THE VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH C OURTS AND ALSO OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS HA VING INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND NO INTEREST IS CHARGED FROM THE SISTER CONCERN, THEN N OTIONAL INTEREST WOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, IF THE AO COMES TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN WERE ROUTED BY THE ASSE SSEE THROUGH HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT, THEN IN THAT EVENTUALITY, THE AO MAY DISAL LOW THE PRORATA INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,155/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 7.1. THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE TO TAL EXPENSES OF RS. 1,15,778/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS. 70,925/- AND MOBILE EXPENSES OF RS. 54,053/- WHICH INCLUDE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9200 /- IN RESPECT OF NEW HANDSET PURCHASED. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MA INTAINED ANY TELEPHONE REGISTER/PROOF EVIDENCING THAT NO PERSONAL USE OF T ELEPHONE/MOBILE WAS INVOLVED. THUS THE AO MADE A TOTAL DISALLOWANCE @ 1/5 TH OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS. 15 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT 115,778/- ( 70,925 + 54,053 RS. 9200) HOLDING THA T PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HE, THEREFORE MADE THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 23,155 + RS. 9200/- (WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITU RE) TOTALING RS. 32,355/-. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE RS. 23,155/-. 7.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. LOOKING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE IS ON HIGHER SIDE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE REDUCE THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 10,000/-. THUS THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF RS. 13,155/-. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D. THIS GROUND IS CONSEQUENTIAL. THEREFORE, THE AO IS, THE AO IS D IRECTED TO ALLOW RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. REVENUES APPEAL : 9. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO IN RESPE CT OF GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, WE ALSO RESTORE THE ISSUE RAISED BY TH E REVENUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ALONG WITH THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED WHEREAS REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/05/2016. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO] YFYR DQEKJ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13/05/2016 16 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE JCIT, RANGE-2, KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 17 ITA NO. 99 & 102/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMAN NAINANI VS. JCIT SL. NO. DATE INITIAL 1 DATE OF DICTATION 2 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER 3 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S 4 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 6 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER 9. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO IN RESPE CT OF GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, WE ALSO RESTORE THE ISSUE RAISED BY TH E REVENUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ALONG WITH THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED WHEREAS REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.