DINESH JAIN, MUMBAI v. ITO 11(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1435/MUM/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 143519914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAAPJ8040P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1435/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant DINESH JAIN, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 11(2)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 23-03-2015
Next Hearing Date 23-03-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 20-02-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH MUMBAI . . !' # $ % & BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA JM . / ITA NO.1435/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ) DINESH JAIN C/O. R. SANGHVI & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 104 RIZVI CHAMBERS NO.-2 JAIN MANDIR MARG OFF HILL RD. BANDERA (W) MUMBAI-400050 .. / APPELLANT V/S ITO 11 ( 2 ) (3) 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN CHURCHGAGE MUMBAI-400020 .... / RESPONDENT . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAAPJ8040P APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH SANGHVI(AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA P. YADAV (DR) ! ' #$ / DATE OF HEARING 23.03.2015 %& '( ' #$ / DATE OF ORDER 29 .04.2015 # / ORDER !' # $ % ' / PER AMIT SHUKLA J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 28 TH DECEMBER 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)3 MUMBAI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT P ASSED UNDER DINESH JAIN 2 SECTION 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 72 000/- U/S 40A(2)(B) BEING RENT PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR CLINIC PREMISE S. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF BANK INTERE ST EXPENSE OF RS.3.15 794/WITHOUT RECOGNIZING/APPRECIATING THE FA CTS AND DETAILED EVIDENCES FILED. 3.IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3 4 1 260/- (I.E. 10% OF MATERIAL CONSUMED) BEING PURCHASE OF DRUGS/CONSUMAB LES BY IGNORING THE DETAILED EVIDENCES FILED AND WITHOUT FACTORING THE APPROPRIATE EFFECT OF SUCH A DISALLOWANCE ON OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK. 4.IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF RS. 72 468/-. IGNORING THE CORRECT WORKING UNDER RULE 8D AND DUPLICATION O F ADDITION ETC. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IND IVIDUAL PRACTICING AS A DENTAL SURGEON SPECIALIZED IN MAXILLO FACIAL IMPL ANT SURGERY. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RENT OF RS.6 00 000 /- TO MRS. RUKHMINI RAJMAL JAIN WHO IS MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THE AUDITORS HAVE FAILED TO QUALIFY SUCH PAYMENTS AS MADE TO PERSON SPECIFIED U/S.40(A)(2)(B ). HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR THAT IS IN A.Y.2008-0 9 THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RENT OF RS.40 000/- PER MONTH AGGREGATING TO RS. 4 80 000/-. IN DINESH JAIN 3 THIS YEAR THE RENT HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 25%. HE HELD THAT INCREASE OF 10% OF THE RENT EVERY YEAR IS NORMAL AND THE MONTHLY PAYMENT RENT SHOULD BE RS.44 000/- WHICH IS REASONABLE FOR THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY HE HELD THAT RS.72 000/- IS EXCESS RENT AND CONSEQUEN TLY DISALLOWED U/S.40A(2)(B). SUCH A DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(A) ALSO. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXCESS RENT PAID TO HIS MOTHER SI MPLY ON THE PREMISE THAT THE INCREASE OF 10% RENT IS NORMAL. NOTHIN G HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENT O F RS.50 000/- AS RENT IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2)(B) T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PRIMA FACIE MAKE SOME INQUIRY OR BRI NG SOME MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SPECIFIED PER SONS IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE OR IS NOT LEGITIMATE LOOKIN G TO THE NEED OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THUS SUCH AN AD HOC DIS ALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT ON THE GROUND OF BEING EXCESSIVE CANNOT BE U PHELD SANS ANY MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.72 000/- IS DELETED. 4. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF BANK INTEREST OF RS.3 15 794/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST DINESH JAIN 4 EXPENSES OF RS.3 39 980/-. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE HE NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN PERSONAL NAME:- SR. NO. SOURCE (RS.) LOAN AS ON 31.3.2009 INTEREST AMOUNT (RS.) PURPOSE 1. CITI BANK L OAN 210095.49 33235.76 BUSINESS LOAN 2. HDFC BANK LOAN 209774.48 29873.53 BUSINESS LOAN 3. ICICI BANK LOAN 443032.19 55283.50 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT LOAN 4. HDFC BANK LOAN 1460693.22 197401.69 BUSINESS LOAN 5. ICICI BANK LOAN - 16408.00 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT LOAN 6. NORTH KANARA BANK - 1303.00 CAR LOAN 7. INTEREST ON OVER DRAFT - 474.00 TOTAL 2323595.38 333979.48 HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO P ROVE ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND ITS UTILIZATION S AND IN A.Y.2008-09 SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS MAD E BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) TOO FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE A. Y. 2008-09 THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 HAS SET ASID E THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR DINESH JAIN 5 BUSINESS PURPOSE OR NOT. MERE CLASSIFICATION OF LOA N AS PERSONAL CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE SO FAR AS ALLOWBILITY OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED. LD. DR ALSO ADMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EA RLIER YEAR WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THIS MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 33. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US LEADING TO THE BANK STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE LOANS. IT IS AN UND ISPUTED FACT THAT THE LOANS TAKEN ARE NAMED AS 'PERSONAL LOANS' SUCH AS CAR LOAN HOUSING LOAN ETC. NOMENCLATURE OF THE LOAN IS NOT A CONCLUS IVE SO FAR AS THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE INTEREST IS CONCERNED. THEREFOR E THE APPLICATION OF THE SAID IMPUGNED LOANS BECOMES A RELEVANT FACTOR F ROM THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE US. NO CONCLUSIVE FACTS ARE DRAWN TO DECIPHE R THE SO CALLED PERSONAL LOANS WERE UTILIZED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THE APPLICATION OF THE LOAN FUNDS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. MERELY BUYING OF A CAR CANNOT BE DEEMED AS A PERSONAL AS THE CAR CAN ALSO BE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR HOUSING PURPOSES SHOULD NOT DISQUALIFY THE ASSE SSEE FROM CLAIMING THE SO LONG AS THE ASSET IS PUT TO USE FOR BUSINESS PUPOSES AND THE SAME IS FOUND IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE BUSINESS ASSETS. TH EREFORE THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS AND THE USE OF THE ASSETS BEC OMES VERY RELEVANT FACTOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE NEED TO DEMONSTRATE. INST EAD OF DECIDING THE ISSUE ON THE STAGNATED INFORMATION PLACED BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE MUST BE EXAMINED CLOSELY VERIFYING T HE FLOW OF FUNDS INTO DINESH JAIN 6 THE ASSETS AND THE USE OF SUCH ASSETS IF THEY CONST ITUTE BUSINESS INCOME OR OTHERWISE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.6 IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIT (A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.6 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ACCORDINGLY IN THIS YEAR ALSO THIS MATTER IS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THE LOAN WH ETHER IT IS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE OR FOR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IN L IGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 41 260/- BEING 10% OF THE MATERIAL CONSUMPTION O N ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF DRUGS/CONSUMABLES. THE BRIEF FACTS OF TH E CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBI TED AN AMOUNT OF RS.34 12 603/- TOWARDS PURCHASES. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RELEVANT DETAILS AND S UBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AT PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. APART FROM THIS THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CHART OF RATIO OF CONSUMPTION TO GROSS COLLECTION OF RECEIPT FOR THE PAS T YEARS WHICH WAS AS UNDER: ASST. YR. GROSS COLLECTION NET PROFITS CONSUMABLES NET PRO. RATIO CONSUMBALES TO GROSS DINESH JAIN 7 COLLECTION 06-07 3754660 868394 1232625.50 32% 33% 07-08 5195197 1022055 1999430.40 20% 38% 08 - 09 8470694 1640277 328553 19% 39% 09-10 10011630.17 1955445.70 3412603.72 19.53% 34% HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS PR OCEEDED TO DISALLOW ON AD HOC BASIS ON THE GROUND THAT SIMILAR DI SALLOWANCE OF CONSUMABLE WAS MADE IN THE A.Y.2008-09 ALSO WHEREI N THE AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CONSUMABLES AT 20% WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO 10% BY THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUC E THE CONSUMPTIONS STOCK REGISTER. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRME D THE DISALLOWANCE @ OF 10% OF THE PURCHASE CONSUMABLE AMO UNTING TO RS.3 41 260/-. THE LD. CIT(A) TOO FOLLOWING THE EARLI ER YEAR PRECEDENCE OF A.Y. 2008-09 UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 9. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH IN THE EARLIER YEAR THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE HOWEVER SUCH DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN THIS YEA R FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND THE MATERIAL CONSUMPTION DULY SUPPORTED BY INVOICES. IN THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER OF DRUGS A ND CONSUMABLES CANNOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF C ONSUMABLES ITEMS RELATING TO SURGICAL AND OTHER MEDICAL EQUIPME NTS/ITEMS USED ON DINESH JAIN 8 PATIENTS. ON THE CONTRARY THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED P ATIENT WISE DETAILS FOR WHOM THESE CONSUMABLES WERE USED. THESE CONSUMABLES ITEMS ARE RECORDED ON REGULAR BASIS. FURTHER THE ASS ESSEES BOOK OF ACCOUNT AND PURCHASES HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED OR ANY D ISCREPANCY WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE A.O. THUS NO AD HOC ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE HAS BE EN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR THEREFORE NO FURTHER RE LIEF SHOULD BE GIVEN. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS FOR HIS ME DICAL PROFESSION. HE HAS DEBITED PURCHASE OF VARIOUS CONSUMABLE ITEMS AT RS.34 12 603/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE MAIN GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABL E TO PROVE THAT ENTIRE PURCHASE OF CONSUMABLES HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FO R THE PURPOSE OF PROFESSION THAT IS ON THE TREATMENT OF THE PATIENTS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE CONSUMPTION STOCK REGISTER. IN ORDER TO COVER SOME POSSIBLE LEAKAGES AD HOC DISALLOWANCE @ OF 10% HAS BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE BEING DENTAL SURGEON FOR THE PURP OSE OF HIS DINESH JAIN 9 PROFESSION REQUIRES HUGE AMOUNT OF CONSUMABLES LIK E MEDICAL FLUIDS MEDICINES CROWNS SWABS DENTURES PASTES GEL ME DICAL DISPOSABLE GLOVES AND HOSTS OF OTHER DENTAL MATERIAL REQUIRED FO R THE TREATMENT OF THE PATIENT. THE PURCHASES OF SUCH MATERIAL/CONSUMABLE S HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED AS THE SAME ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY PU RCHASE INVOICES. PATIENT WISE STOCK REGISTER OR DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTIO N STOCK REGISTER IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE RE ARE HUNDREDS OF ITEMS WHICH ARE CONSUMED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE A SSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THEAO THAT PATIENTWISE CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BILLS RAISED TO PATIENTS WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF CONSUMABLES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES O F THE BILLS CONTAINING NAMES OF THE PATIENT IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID MEDICINES/DRUGS/CONSUMABLES HAVE BEEN USED. FURTHER THE LIST OF MATERIALS PURCHASES FOR CONSUMPTIONS WERE PRODUCED WH ICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AND A LSO NOTED BY HIM AT PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHOUT FINDING ANY DEFECT IN SUCH DETAILS OR BOOKS OF ACC OUNT HAS PROCEEDED TO MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCES WHICH IN OUR OPINION CA NT BE MADE ON THE GROUND THAT DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION STOCK REGISTER HA S NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. EVEN IF THERE IS SOME POSSIBLE LEAKAGES THEN SAME IS TO TREATED AS DAMAGE OR LOSS INCURRED DURING THE COURSE OF MEDICAL PROFESSION. IT IS NOT CASE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE DINESH JAIN 10 CONSUMABLE ITEMS OR HAS USED IT FOR OTHER THAN BUSINES S OR PROFESSION. IF THE CONSUMABLE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PATIENT THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN THE GARB OF POSSIBLE LEAKAGES . THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGES OF THE CONSUMABLES MATERIALS CAN ONLY ADVER SELY VIEWED WHEN EITHER IT HAS BEEN USED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPO SE OR HAS BEEN INFLATED WHICH HERE IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE CASE OF T HE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAIN ED BY THE CIT(A) ON AD HOC BASIS IS SANS ANY MERIT AND SAME IS DELET ED. THUS THE GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED. 12. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF RS.72 468/- THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.71 664/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.8 29 449/- ON SALE OF SHARES WHICH WAS CLAIMED A S EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE THE U/S.14A AT RS. 14 756/- VIDE LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 FILED BEFORE AO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HE HAS NO T CONSIDERED THE INTEREST COMPONENT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE S CASE WAS THAT HE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EXPENSE S FOR EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME FOR WHICH DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D. HOWEVER THE AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.72 466/-. THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ALSO. DINESH JAIN 11 13. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED THE INDIRECT EXPENSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 8D WHICH WAS 14 756/-. SO FAR AS INTEREST PAYMENT IS CONCERN THE SAME WAS WHOLLY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ONLY SURPLUS FU NDS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS. THUS NO DISALLOWANCE ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST COMPONENT SHOULD BE MADE. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF CIT(A). 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ROPED IN THE INTEREST COMPONEN T IN WORKING OF DISALLWONCE UNDER RULE 8D WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHET HER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS OR NOT. IF THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT MADE AND THE BORRO WED FUNDS THEN NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST COULD BE MADE U/S.1 4A READ WITH RULE 8D. THUS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION REGAR DING INTEREST COMPONENT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO THROUGH WHETHER ANY BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME TO THE ASSES SEE. WITH THIS DIRECTION MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSED. DINESH JAIN 12 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF APRIL 2015. SD/- SD/- SD SD / - . . B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - !' # $ % AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI () DATED:29 .04.2015 PATEL %& ' #)* +*# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) # / THE ASSESSEE; (2) - / THE REVENUE; (3) .#( ) / THE CIT(A); (4) .# / THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) *12 #3 $ 3 ! / THE DR ITAT MUMBAI; (6) 2 5! / GUARD FILE. * # # / TRUE COPY %& / BY ORDER 6 / 7 - / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) $ 3 ! / ITAT MUMBAI