M/S PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDAI) LTD., Indore V. THE JCIT RANGE-1, Indore

MA 40/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7178 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B J BORICHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGRAWAL; PANKAJ MOGRA CAS
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Speculation loss; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 43(5); 254(2); 6

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS.40 & 41/IND/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.610 & 611/IND/2016) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S PREMIER INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. 17, CHETAK CENTRE , 12/2, RNT MARG, INDORE / VS. JCIT-I INDORE ( APPELLANT ) ( RE VENUE ) PAN: AABCP1890P APPELLANT BY S/SHRI S.N. AGRAWAL & PANKAJ MOGRA, CAS, RE VENUE BY SHRI B.J. BORICHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 27.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.10.2019 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AT T HE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.11.2018 VIDE ITANOS.610 & 611/IND/2016 PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 2 2. IN MA NO.40/IND/2019, FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2011-12 IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN TREAT ING THE BROKERAGE EXPENDITURE OF RS.26,28,179/- AS PART OF SPECULATIO N LOSS EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE COURSE OF TRANSACTIONS OF HEDGING THE PRICE OF SOYA OIL, THE TOTAL LOSS WAS INCURRED AT RS.37,88,391/- WHICH INCLUDED BROKERAGE EXPENDITURE OF RS.26,28,179/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF BROKERAGE, BUT INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF BROKERAGE IN THE FIGURE OF LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF HEDGING. SUCH BROK ERAGE EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF NORMAL BUS INESS AND NOT AS PART OF THE SPECULATION LOSS AS TREATED IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) O PPOSED THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE TRANSACTIONS OF COMMODITY HEDGING OF THE PRICES OF THE SOYA OIL. SUCH HEDGING WAS DONE THROUGH COMMODITY EXCHANGES WITHOUT MAKING ANY DELI VERY OF GOODS. LOSS OF RS.37,88,391/- WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HELD THA T THE ALLEGED LOSS OF RS.37,88,391/- IS SPECULATION LOSS AS DEFINED IN U/S 43(5) OF THE M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 3 ACT. IN THE INSTANT MISC. APPLICATION, IT IS CONTEN DED THAT THE TOTAL SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.37,88,391/- COMPRISES OF THE BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.26,28,179/-, AND THE SAME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SPECULATION LOSS AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS NORM AL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 6. WE, HOWEVER, FAIL TO FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WE HAVE HELD THE T RANSACTIONS OF HEDGING LOSS AS PART OF SPECULATION BUSINESS. SPECU LATION LOSS/GAIN CANNOT BE CONFINED, ONLY TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES/SALE. IT IS A TOTAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN ITSELF. THE ALLEGED BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.26,28,179/- HAVE BEEN INCU RRED ON VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS OF HEDGING OF SOYA OIL PRICE. THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE COURSE OF SPECULATION BUSINESS W ERE HAVING DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BROKERAGE EXPENSES PAID TO THE COMMO DITY EXCHANGES/AGENTS. SUCH BROKERAGE EXPENSES WERE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SPECULATION BUSINESS. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE CANNOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TA X ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE COURS E OF SPECULATION BUSINESS IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE. THEREFORE, TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 19.11.2018 MADE NO MIST AKE IN HOLDING RS.37,88,391/-(INCLUDE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 26,28,179/-) AS SPECULATION LOSS ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SPE CULATION PROFITS IS SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR THE PERIOD AS PROVIDED IN INCOM E TAX ACT. M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 4 7. IN THESE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GRIE VANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN MA NO.40/IND/2019 RATHER THAN POINTING OUT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, SEEMS TO BE CALLING FOR REVIEWING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IN OUR VIEW IS NOT PERMITTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN M.A.N O.40/IND/2019 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. 8. THROUGH GROUND NO.2 OF MA NOS.40/IND/2019 & GROU ND NOS.2 & 3 OF MA NO.41/IND/2019 COMMON ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED AGAINST THE ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO T HE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: 4.2 THE AMOUNT AS DISALLOWED AND CHALLENGED IN APPE AL IN THE ASSESSMENT. YEARS 20011-12 AND 2012-13 ARE AS UNDER: S.NO. ASSESSMENT. YEAR AMOUNT(RS) 1 2011-12 6,82,287 2 2012-13 1,73,382 4.2] THAT AS NOTED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH IN PARA 21 ON INNER PAGE NO 25 THAT HON'BLE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE AP PELLANT COMPANY ITSELF FOR THE ASST YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-1 0 HAS ALSO DELETED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AS DISAL LOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36[1][III] OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMED B EFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED FROM THE INVESTMENT AS MADE IN THE SHARES OF M/S NARMADA SUG AR LIMITED [ NOW KNOWN AS GIRDHARILAL SUGAR AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES P LIMITED]. M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 5 4.3] THAT WHILE MAINTAINING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, THE HON'BLE BENCH IN PARAS 23 AND 24 OBSE RVED AS UNDER: 23. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE M ADE BY THE LD.A.O, WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT SUSTAINED BY LD. CI T(A) IS NOT WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT RATHER IT IS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT FOR THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PA ID IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT INVESTED IN EQUITY SHARES OTHERWI SE THAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. OUR VIEW GET FU RTHER FORTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF ACCEPTED THAT INT EREST BEARING FUNDS WERE APPLIED FOR MAKING INTEREST IN THE EQUITY SHAR ES OF RS.88,OO,OOOI- OF M/S. GIRDHARILAL SUGAR & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LIMITED. 24. ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON PLETHORA OF JUD GMENTS BUT AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS AND THE DECISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ON THE F ACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFO RE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,82,287/- AND RS.1,73,382/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF ACCEPTED WHILE PREPARING THE INCOME TAX RETU RN. 4.4] THAT HON'BLE BENCH WHILE MAINTAINING THE DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A , CONSIDERED THAT INTEREST BEARIN G FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. RATHER DISALLOWANCE WAS CONSIDERED AS MADE UNDER SECTION 36[1][III] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN PLACE OF 14A. F ACTUALLY, THIS WAS NOT CORRECT SINCE, THE LD CIT(A) MAINTAINE D THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND NOT U NDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 4.5.1] HON'BLE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT C OMPANY ITSELF VIDE ORDER DT 15-12- 2010 THE ASST YEAR 2006 -07 , WHILE DEALING WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UND ER M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 6 SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY STATING THAT: IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CO NSIDERED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SHRIDEV ENTERPRISES (192 ITR 165), DECISION FROM HON 'BLE A PEX COURT IN S.A. BUILDERS (288 ITR 1), DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 DATED 15.3.2010 (ITA NO.1 060/INDLI997) AND ULTIMATELY, D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS ARE ANAL YSED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY DERIVED THE BENEFIT UNDER SALES-TA X DEFERRED SCHEME/EXEMPTION SCHEME, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INVESTM ENT IN M/S. NARMADA SUGAR LTD., WHICH IN TURN, DEPLOYED THESE F UNDS FOR GENERATION OF POWER, THEREFORE, THIS FACT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE. EVEN, HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCEE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (15 ITJ 329) CONSIDER ED THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISION OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT ALO NG WITH RULE 8D STATING HOW THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME IS TO BE CALCULATED. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DECIDED TO INSTALL NON-CONVENT IONAL POWER UNIT AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE GOVT. OF MADHYA PRADESH FO R DEFERRED OF SALES TAX/CENTRAL SALES TAX, ON THE BASIS OF INVESTMENT M ADE IN NONCONVENTIONAL POWER GENERATION UNIT, THEREFORE, N O INTEREST IS DISALLOWABLE AS PER THE DECISION FROM HON 'BLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCEE (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4.5.2] THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE WAS NO JUST IFICATION FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTI ON 36[I][III] OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THAT AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVE AS ON 31.03.1995 WAS OF RS 5,79,00,7401- AND RS 11,04,48,073/- TOTALING TO RS 16,83,48,813/- WHEREAS INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS SHOWN AS ON M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 7 31.03.1995 WAS OF RS 3,53,52,2001- . HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CAN BE JUSTIFIED. 4.5.3] THAT HON'BLE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DT 07-11-2 016 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT ITSELF FOR THE ASST YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS HELD THAT: 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ONLY DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHARE OF GIRDHARILAL SUGAR & ALLIED IND LTD. COSTING RS. 88 LACS AND AS PER RULE 8D THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE C AN BE MADE 0.50% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT WHICH COMES TO RS. 44,0 06/-. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 BECAUSE THE SAM E INVESTMENT OF RS. 88 LACS IS COMING OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ,2007- 08,2008-09 AND 2009-10 4.6 THAT MERELY DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE APPEL LANT IN ITS RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME IN NO WAY AFFECT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT CORRE CT INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED. THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HON'BL E BENCH IN SYNOPSIS IN PARAS 3.3.1 TO 3.3.5 ON INNER PAGE N OS 147 TO 151 OF THE SYNOPSIS HAS DEALT THE SAID ISSUE IN DET AIL. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE BOARD CIRCULAR AND FOLLOWING DECISIONS BEFORE THE HON 'BLE BENCH: S.NO REFERENCE CITATION 1 CBDT CIRCULAR NO 14[XI-35] OF 1955 DT 11-04-1955 2 MAYANK PODDAR (HUF) VS WTO 262 ITR 633 [ CALCUT TA ] 3 CIT VS BHASKAR MITTER 73 TAXMANN 437 [ CALCUTTA ] 4 SUSHIL KUMAR DAS VS ITO 15 TAXMANN.COM 52[ KOLK ATA] 5 CIT VS SHELLY PRODUCTS 129 TAXMANN 271 [ APEX M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 8 I COURT] 4.7] THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE APPELL ANT ITSELF IN THE RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME THOUGH THE SAM E WAS DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND ALSO BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). HENCE, HON'BLE BENCH IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO RECONSIDER THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT AND REDECIDE THE SAID GROUND IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS. 4.8] THAT HON'BLE THIRD MEMBER BENCH OF DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS ITO AS REPORTED IN 89 ITD 0179 HAS HELD THAT: ' 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF TH E VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JM IS THE CORRECT ONE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THE NON- CONSIDERATION OF A JUDGMENT CITED BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHI N THE MEANING OF S. 254[2J AND ON BEING POINTED OUT BY ANY OF THE PARTIES, THE TRIBUNAL IS OBLIGED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE JUDGMENT SO CITED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RESULTS THAT WOULD FOLLOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LEARNED JM HAS VERY APTLY COMPARED THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WITH THOSE PREVAILING IN THE CASE OF ITO VS FOOD SPECIALTIES LTD (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DIRECTED REQUISITE RELIEF' 4.9] THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE APPEAL, HON'BLE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS AS CITED BEFORE IT. THIS B EING MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS, THE SAME NEED TO REC TIFY AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 254[2] OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. IT IS M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 9 THEREFORE REQUESTED TO THE HON'BLE BENCH TO RECALL THE ORDER AS PASSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND REDEC IDE THE SAME. 05]. THIS APPLICATION MAY KINDLY BE TREATED AS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254[2] OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. 9. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) OPPOSED THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD IN THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN MA NOS.40 & 4 1/IND/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 IS AGAINST T HE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EX PENDITURE OF RS.6,82,287/- AND RS.1,73,382/-. 11. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.11.2016, SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.44,000/- BEIN G 0.50% OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.88 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF GIRDHARILAL SUGAR & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LIM ITED. THIS INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1994- 95. M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 10 12. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE LITTLE DIFFE RENT. THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ALLEGED ORDER HAS DISCUSSED THE ISS UE IN DETAIL BUT STILL FOR SAKE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, IT NEEDS TO BE RECAPITULATED WHICH AR E COMMON FOR BOTH YEARS. 13. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2011-12 LD. AO DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AT RS.10,56,000 /-. NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N BEFORE THE LD. AO MAKING ALTERNATE PLEA THAT NO DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST OF RS.10,56,000/- SHOULD BE MADE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S SUO MOTO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,82,287/- AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. HOWEVER, THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND THE LD. AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,56,000/-. AGAINST THIS DISALLO WANCE THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO R EFERRING TO HIS OWN DECISION IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 SU STAINED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3,69,984/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 14. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE MADE BY LD . AO AT RS.10,56,000/- SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY TO RS.6 ,82,287/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED IN ITS COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME. IN THIS WAY, ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF. I N THE I.T.A.T. ORDER DATED 07.11.2016 REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE IN M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 11 THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ISSUE WAS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND EVEN THE TRIBUNAL SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANC E U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.44,000/-. HOWEVER, IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 THE ISSUE ADJU DICATED IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND NOT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EX PENDITURE SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS AFTER GIVING DETAILED FINDING AND CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE. TRIBUNAL HAS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AT RS.6,82,287/- AND RS.173382/- FOR A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 REFERRIN G TO THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME U/S 14A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS ACCEPTING THE ALTERNATE PLEA MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THERE REMAINS NO ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE U/S 14 A OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE IS ONLY OF RS.6,82,287/- AND RS.1, 73,382/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX IN THE COMP UTATION OF INCOME AND TREATED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 15. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO M ISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEED S TO BE RECTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE SECOND ISSUE COMMONLY RAISED FOR A.Y . 20011-12 & 2012-13 IN MANO.40/IND/2019 GROUND NO.2 & GROUND NO .2 & 3 OF M.A NO.41/IND/2019 ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. M.A. PREMIER INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., MANOS.610 & 611/IND/2019 12 16. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.10.20 19. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 17/10/2019 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR