THE DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI v. M/S. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5739/MUM/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014

Appeal Details

RSA Number 573919914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACV2300H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5739/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant THE DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI
Respondent M/S. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 14-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 02-06-2014
Next Hearing Date 02-06-2014
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 11-09-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; OA OA OA OA JH JH JH JH JKTSUNZ JKTSUNZ JKTSUNZ JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; ] YS[KK LNL; ] YS[KK LNL; ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K DS LE{K DS LE{K DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. ASSMNT. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 5739/MUM/2008 2005 - 06 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3) ROOM NO. 609 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD 17 TH FLOOR C WING MITTAL COURT NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN:- AAACV2300H 569/MUM/2008 2005 - 06 JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(OSD) RANGE 9(3) MUMBAI ROOM NO. 668 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. 02 ND FLOOR COURT HOUSE DR. D.N. ROAD FORT MUMBAI 400 001. PAN: AABCV4012H 3839/MUM/2009 2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3) ROOM NO. 609 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. 171-C MITTAL COURT C-WING 7 TH FLOOR EXPRESS TOWERS NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN: AABCV4012H 4421/MUM/2012 2007 - 08 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3) ROOM NO. 609 6 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. 171-C MITTAL COURT NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN: AABCV4012H CROSS OBJECTION NO. ASSMNT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 238/MUM/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3839/MUM/2009 2006-07 M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. 171-C C-WING MITTAL COURT NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021 PAN: AABCV4012H DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3) ROOM NO. 609 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 2 | P A G E ORDER PER BENCH THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND ONE CROSS OBJ ECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. IN ITA NO. 5739/MUM/2008 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROPOR TIONATE INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF RS. 13 48 00 004/- ON ADVANCES TO SUB SIDIARY COMPANIES INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AND OTHE R ADVANCES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 34 86 538/- BEING CREDIT BALANCE IN PLA ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CENTRAL EXCI SE DEPARTMENT 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF PROPOR TIONATE INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) ON ADVANCES TO SUBSIDIARY. 2.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AS WELL AS FOR A.Y. 2004-05. FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 12 AND 13 AS UNDER:- REVENUE BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BIRLA ASSESSEE BY SHRI A. V. SONDE. DATE OF HEARING 5-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.11.2014 M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 3 | P A G E 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAINLY RELYING ON HIS APPELLA TE ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.4.2010 PASSED IN I TA NO. 4784/MUM/2008 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF INTEREST ON SIMILAR GROUND S HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER AND PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY R ECORDING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSIONS IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 30 TO 34 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVA L CONTENTIONS. WE TAKE UP FIRST THE INTEREST REFERABLE TO THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO TP I ALLEGEDLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND NEAR AAREY COLONY BORIVALI. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS PASSED ON 27.07.2002 AND THE SAME IS AT PAGE 104 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE RESOLUTION SAYS THAT THE COMPANY MAY ENTE R INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TPI WHO HAVE AGREED TO RENDER TH EIR SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AFTER VACA TING THE PRESENT TENANTS OCCUPYING THE SAME ON PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES AT 1% OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED THAT TPI MAY BE PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.115. 00 CRORES FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING AND VACATING THE EXISTING TENANTS OCCUP YING THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RESOL UTION WENT ON TO SAY THAT IN CASE TPI IS UNABLE TO VACATE THE TENANTS OR THAT TH E TRANSACTION WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT MATERIALIZE FOR ANY REASON THE EN TIRE ADVANCE SHALL BE RETURNED BY TPI TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN THAT CASE NO SERVICE CHA RGES WILL BE PAID TO TPI. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 01.08.2002 WITH TPI COPIES OF THE CORRESPONDENCE B ETWEEN TPI AND WONDERLAND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND SOME CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BMRDA AND WONDERLAND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A PERUSAL OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREPARED TO PAY RS.150.00 CRORES FOR THE PROPERTY. IF THAT IS SO THE SERVICE CHARGES PAYABL E TO TPI CAN BE A MAXIMUM OF RS.1.5 CRORES ONLY. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE PAPERS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE LAND AND AS TO WHY TPI SHOULD BE GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS.115.00 CRORES WHICH IS MANY TIMES MORE THAN THE SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE TO IT ON FINALIZATION OF THE DEAL. IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT TPI IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND IT IS UNUSUAL THAT DESPITE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S PREPARED TO GIVE AN ADVANCE OF RS.115.00 CRORES TO IT AND ACTUALLY ADVANCED RS.110 .07 CRORES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN TPI AND WONDERLA ND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. KEPT AT PAGES 107 TO 109 OF THE PAPER BOOK. TH E LETTER DATED 12.03.2002 WRITTEN BY TPI TO WONDERLAND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IS QUITE BALD AND CRYPTIC FOR A TRANSACTION WHICH APPARENTLY IS WORTH SEVERAL CRORES OF RUPEES. EVEN THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2002 WRITTEN BY WONDERL AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. TO TPI IS JUST A THREE LINE LETTER ASKING TPI TO FIND SUITABLE BUYERS FOR THE PROPERTY. BY LETTER DATED 28.03.2002 WONDERLAND ESTATE DEVELOPER S PVT. LTD. INFORMED TPI THAT THEY HAD 15 BUNGALOW PLOTS FOR WHICH ALL APPROVALS ARE I N PLACE AND THE INTENDING PURCHASER CAN GO AHEAD WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY I MMEDIATELY. COPIES OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BMRDA AND WONDERLAND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK BUT THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING OUT WHETHER THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO TP I IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS. THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS OR AS BUILDERS OF P ROPERTIES NOR WAS IT CLAIMED BY THE M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 4 | P A G E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSE SSEE PROPOSED TO COMMENCE ANY SUCH BUSINESS BY ACQUIRING THE LAND. EVEN BEFORE US THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO SHOW WITH REFERENCE TO THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT IT WAS PART OF ITS BUSINESS TO DEAL IN REAL ESTATE OR AS BUILDERS. ON THE WHOLE IT IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE PR OPERTY. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 21.02.2007 FILED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) [PAGES 1 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK]. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 6.6.1 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BUT DO NOT FIND ANYTHING THEREIN TO SHO W THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH THE LAND WAS PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED HAS NOT BEEN STATED THEREIN . IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LAND W AS BEING ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THIS IS SO PARTICULARLY HA VING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT PURCHASE OF LAND CAN ALSO BE BY WAY OF INVESTMENT. THERE ARE ONLY ASSERTIONS IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSIN ESS BUT THE SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE D OCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN DOUBT. HE HAS ALSO HELD THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT WANTED TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES FOR SMOOTH AND EFFICIENT RUN NING OF ITS EXISTING BUSINESS (PARAGRAPH 8.15 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). IN OUR OPIN ION THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS GE NUINE IT IS STILL NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND WAS PROPOSE D TO BE ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. ON THIS ASPECT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE BASIS FOR THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT TH E ASSESSEE WANTED TO PURCHASE THE LAND FOR SMOOTH AND EFFICIENT RUNNING OF ITS EXISTI NG BUSINESS. THERE IS HARDLY ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS OBSERVATION. W E ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO APPROVE THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUIS ITION OF THE LAND WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO THE SUBSIDIARIES THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF INTER EST FROM PARAMOUNT GLOBAL LTD. TO WHICH IT HAD ADVANCED RS.35.68 CRORES. IN PARAGRAPH 8.17 OF HIS ORDER HE HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED AND EARNED INTEREST I NCOME OF RS.2 87 24 415/- FROM THIS COMPANY. HE HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRESPONDINGLY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF P ARAMOUNT GLOBAL LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. THE LEARNED DR HAD ALSO NOT DISPUTED THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A). SINCE INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON THE ADV ANCE OF PARAMOUNT GLOBAL LTD. WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISALLOWANCE O F THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.1 42 87 435/- ON THE ADVANCE TO THE SAID COMPANY . WE AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. AS REGARDS THE AMO UNT ADVANCED TO VIDEOCON INDUSTRIAL FINANCE LTD. THE TOTAL ADVANCE IS ONLY RS.13 70 304/- AND IT HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE CIT(A) THAT THIS COMPANY HAS DONE BUSINESS O F TRADING IN ELECTRONIC GOODS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THIS COMP ANY IS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP AND THE BALANCE REPRESENTS THE NET AMOUNT RECEIVABL E FROM THE SAID COMPANY. OBVIOUSLY NO INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED AS IT REPRESEN TS A TRADE OUTSTANDING. WE AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE PROPORTION ATE INTEREST OF RS.54 858/- ON THE ADVANCE TO VIDEOCON INDUSTRIAL FINANCE LTD. CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. AS REGARDS THE ADVANCE OF RS.1 29 88 926/- IS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE TO VIDEOCON CAYMAN LTD. THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN 1999 AND WER E CONTINUING IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS. THE MAJOR ADVANCE OF RS.1 25 91 800/- WAS MA DE ON 26.11.2002 WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THIS WAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REPRESENT MANAGEMENT FEES PAYABLE TO THAT COMPANY. THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. HOWEVER BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ADDUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF A LETTER FROM ICICI BANK IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND THE SAME WAS ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A). ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER HE DELETED THE A DDITION OF THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.5 19 985/-. A COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS AT P AGES 173 TO 176 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND FROM THE LETTER THAT THE DEBITING OF THE MANAG EMENT FEE IN THE ACCOUNT OF VIDEOCON CAYMAN LTD. WAS A RESULT OF AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 5 | P A G E PUT THROUGH BY ICICI BANK. APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THE FEES PAYABLE TO ICICI BANK TO THE ACCOUNT OF VIDEOCON CAYMAN LTD. THE COP Y OF THE CHEQUE PLACED AT PAGE 176 OF THE PAPER BOOK ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAV OUR OF THE BANK FOR RS.1 23 55 200/- SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WE AGREE WITH THE CIT(A) THAT THERE CAN BE NO PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO VIDEOCON CAYMAN L TD. ACCORDINGLY THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 19 985/- IS UPHELD. WE NOW TURN TO THE INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS / LOANS . THE MAIN GROUND ON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PROPORTIONATE INTE REST IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF INTEREST ON THE DEPOSITS DURING THE INIT IAL PERIOD BUT LATER THE DEPOSITS BECAME NON PERFORMING ASSETS AND THEREAFTER THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS RIGHT IN NOT CHARGING ANY INTEREST BECAUSE CHARGING OF INTEREST ON NON PERFOR MING ASSETS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE AS-9 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF RECOGNITION OF REVENU E. THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS FINANCING BUSINESS AND THE INTEREST THEREON HAS BEE N ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS. THE OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THIS IS A NEW CONTENTION ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT DUE VERIFICATION. WE HAVE PER USED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 08.03.2007 FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE TH E CIT(A). IN PARAGRAPH XIII. OF THE SAID REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS CARRYING ON FINANCING ACTIVITY IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS CONTENTION THAT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED ON THE INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS / LOANS BEC AUSE THEY HAD BECOME NON PERFORMING ASSETS. IN PARAGRAPH XIV. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISPUTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AGAIN POINTING OUT THAT EXCLUDING THE INTEREST ON THE ICDS GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF FINANCING BUSINESS OR OTHERWISE IS AG AINST THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND ALSO THAT IF THE DEPOSITS ARE NOT ULTIMATELY RE COVERED THEY COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS AND THE RETURN FILED. THESE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SHOW THAT HE HAD NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED OR DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST ON THE ICDS WAS CHARGED AND ASSESSED U NDER THE HEAD BUSINESS SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FINANC ING. WE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE OBJECTION OF THE SENIOR DR BEFORE US THA T THIS IS A NEW ANGLE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) AND REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH. WE T HEREFORE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS / LOANS WE RE ADVANCED IN THE COURSE OF THE FINANCING BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT CHARGING INTEREST WHEN THE DEPOSITS OR LOANS TH EMSELVES BECAME DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY WHICH CONDUCT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH AS-9 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA REGARDING RECOGNITIO N OF REVENUES. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWING THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.32 99 322/-. TURNING NOW TO THE ADVANCES RECOVERABLE IN CASH OR KIND WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT AFTER SETTING OUT THE RELEVANT DETAILS I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 13 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY WORKED OUT THE INT EREST TO BE DISALLOWED AT RS.5 77 869/- WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY REASONS. BE TH AT AS IT MAY THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.18 13 80 000/- WAS ADVANCED TO FOU R DIFFERENT COMPANIES AS SHARE APPLICATION MONIES. THREE OF THE COMPANIES WERE PRI VATE LIMITED COMPANIES. APPARENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGHT THAT ADVA NCING MONEY AS SHARE APPLICATION MONIES AMOUNTED TO INVESTMENT AND THUS DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE AMOUNTS SO ADVANCED WERE RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR ITSELF. THE AMOUNTS THUS REM AINED ADVANCED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONIES ONLY FOR SHORT PERIODS FOR ABOU T TWO MONTHS AT THE MOST. THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE AUTHORIZ ED BY BOARD RESOLUTIONS AND THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY WAS ALSO DONE IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE OBJECTS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THESE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BEFORE US. FURTHER THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONIES BECAUS E THERE IS NO PROVISION TO DO SO. IN ADDITION TO THESE FINDINGS THE CIT(A) HAS AL SO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE TO COVER THE INVESTMENT. ULTIM ATELY THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 6 | P A G E SHARE APPLICATION MONIES WERE DEFRAYED PURSUANT TO THE OBJECTS CLAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SO THAT IT CAN BE SAID THAT THEY W ERE ADVANCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS HA S BEEN FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS CLAUSE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCI ATION AND IF THAT IS SO THE INTEREST CANNOT BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE EVEN IF BORRO WED FUNDS WERE USED FOR MAKING SHARE APPLICATION MONIES THE SHARE APPLICATION MON IES HAVING BEEN PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS THERE IS NO DIV ERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS TO JUSTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST. THIS IN E FFECT IS THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 8.21 OF HIS ORDER AND WE AGREE WITH THE S AME AND UPHOLD THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 77 869/- BEING INTEREST PR OPORTIONATE TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONIES. WE NOW TURN BACK TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTERES T PROPORTIONATE TO THE ADVANCE OF RS.110.07 CRORES TO TPI ALLEGEDLY FOR TH E PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY IN ROYAL PALMS AAREY COLONY BORIVALI. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ADVANCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. TH E QUESTION NOW WILL BE AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS WHETHER THE ADVANCE CAME OUT OF THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BORROWED FUNDS. IT MAY BE RECALLED THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ASPECT WAS THAT EVEN ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BENEFIT OF OWN FUNDS OF RS.1996.42 CRORES IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ADVANCE TO TP I. IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WE WERE REFERRED TO THE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM). IN THIS CASE RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME C OURT IN EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (1982) 1 34 ITR 219 (CAL) THAT IF THERE WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BOTH INTEREST FREE AND OVERDRAFT AS WELL AS LOANS THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT THE INVESTMENTS NOT RELATING TO THE BUSINESS WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILAB LE WITH THE COMPANY PROVIDED SUCH INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INV ESTMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS STATED IN PARAGRAPH 9.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 8 THEREOF THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL FUNDS OF RS.4294.87 CRORES AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E ITS OWN FUNDS AMOUNT TO RS.1996.42 CRORES WHICH CONSTITUTED 46.48% OF THE T OTAL CAPITAL. HE HAS ALSO HELD IN PARAGRAPH 9.11 THAT THE FUNDS ARE MIXED BUT HAS OB SERVED THAT THE ADVANCE COULD NOT HAVE COME OUT OF ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS AND INTEREST WOULD HAVE COME OUT OF THE MIX OF BORROWED AND OWN FUNDS IN EQUAL RATIO. THIS OBSE RVATION IS CONTRARY TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED SUP RA WHERE IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF MIXED FUNDS THE PRESUMPTI ON IS THAT THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES CAME OUT OF THE ASSESSEE S OWN FUNDS PROVIDED THE OWN FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER SUCH ADVANCES. RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDGMENT WE FIND THAT THE OWN FUNDS OF RS.1996.42 CRORES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ADVANCE OF RS.110.07 CRORES MADE TO TPI. IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER WE HOLD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ADVANCE TO TPI WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE O F ASSESSEES BUSINESS BUT SINCE THE ADVANCE MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE COME OUT OF TH E ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS WHICH WERE MUCH MORE THAN THE ADVANCE NO DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST CAN BE MADE. WE THUS AGREE WITH THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.4 40 39 344/- PROPORTIONATE TO THE ADVANCE TO TP I CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO TH IS ISSUE AS INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04. THE ONLY CONTENTION RAISED BY HIM IN THIS REGARD IS THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR D EDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AS TO WHETHER THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY IT TO THE SISTE R CONCERN HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BY THE SAID CONCERNS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HOWEVER A S RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 7 | P A G E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED SUCH UTILIZATION BY THE SISTER CONCERNS FOR BUSINES S PURPOSES EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COUR SE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COV ERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 (SUPRA) AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 2.2 SINCE IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE ADVANCE IS SAME TH EREFORE FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 3. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST BEING THE CREDIT BALANCE IN PLA MAINTAINED WITH CENTRAL EXCISE DEPAR TMENT. 3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM PERUSAL O F RECORDS THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN PARA 7 AND 8 AS UNDER:- 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS EX AMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON SUCH EXAMINATION HE FOUND THAT INTERES T OF RS. 1 04 43 421/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAYED PAYMENT O F EXCISE DUTY. IN THIS REGARD THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA ID INTEREST PAID BY IT WAS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANT IATE THE SAME. ACCORDING TO HIM THE SAID INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEL AY IN PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY WAS OF PENAL NATURE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM BY INVOKING EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1). BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SU BMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID UNDER SECTION 11AA AND 11AB OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 IS COMPENS ATORY IN NATURE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS PENAL IN NATURE SINCE THE PENA LTY WAS SEPARATELY PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 FOR SHORT LEVY OR NON-LEVY OF DUTY. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS CO. (123 ITR 429)(SC) AND IN THE CASE O F PRATHIBHA PROCESSORS V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1997 SC 138. AFTER TAKING INTO C ONSIDERATION THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ON M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 8 | P A G E BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND ME RIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST PAID FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF EXCISE DU TY WAS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND NOT PENAL. HE THEREFORE DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN TEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER RULE 8(3) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE RULES 2002 WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAI LS TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF DUTY BY THE DUE DATE HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY THE OUTSTAN DING AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE SPECIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR THE PERIOD STARTING WITH THE FIRST DAY AFTER THE DUE DA TE TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT. SECTION 11AA AND SECTION 11 AB OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 PROVIDE FOR INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT ON DU TY AT SUCH RATE AS IS FOR THE TIME BEING FIXED BY THE BOARD FROM THE DUE DATE TIL L THE DATE OF PAYMENT DUTY. SECTION 11AC OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 PROVID E FOR PENALTY FOR SHORT LEVY OR NON-LEVY OF DUTY IN CERTAIN CASES WHICH IS IN ADDIT ION TO THE INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON DELAYED PAYMENTS OF DUTY. THESE SPECIFI C PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 CLEARLY SHOW THAT INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY U/S.11AA AND 11AB RE AD WITH RULE 8(3) IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE WHEREAS PENALTY FOR SHORT LE VY OR NON-LEVY OF DUTY IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY U/S.11AC. THE IN TEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY THUS WAS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND NO T PENAL IN NATURE AS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTE REST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) TH US WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION WAS RIGHT IN DELETI NG THE SAME. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD DISMISSING GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 3.2 FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE. 3.3 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 57 39/MUM/2008 ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN ITA NO. 569/MUM/2008 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25 67 17 519/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 9 | P A G E WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE THAT THE DEBTS HAD ACTUALLY BECOME BAD OR IRRECOVERABLE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19 32 288/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING LOSS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE SAME WERE IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 68 69 020/- BEING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES MADE TO GROUP CON CERN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY WAS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF BAD D EBTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BAD DEBTS AND OTHER ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 25 67 17 519/- ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS AND HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF IT S CLAIM IN WRITING OFF BAD DEBTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4.2 ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT WHAT IS ME NTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND D OUBTFUL DEBTS IS NOT CORRECT AS THE CLAIM AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WAS ACTUAL LY WRITTEN OFF IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE CREDIT BALANCE OF P ROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREATED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLIS HING THAT THE DEBTS HAS ACTUALLY GONE BAD THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 10 | P A G E 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT (A) HAS CLEARLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AGA INST THE CREDIT BALANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREATED IN THE EARLIER YEARS THEREFORE THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CO NTRARY TO THE RECORD AND FACTS AS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE NEC ESSITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBTS HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE I S NO MORE REQUIRED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF TRF LIMITED V. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD IN PARA 4 AS UNDER:- 4. THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL-SETTLED. AFTER 1ST APRIL 1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT H AS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERA BLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE DEBT HAS IN FACT BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN BAD DEBT OCCURS THE BAD DEBT ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND THE CUS TOMER'S ACCOUNT IS CREDITED THUS CLOSING THE ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER. IN THE C ASE OF COMPANIES THE PROVISION IS DEDUCTED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS. AS STATED ABOVE T HE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER IN FACT THE BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS W RITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO. HENCE THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASPECT ONLY AND THAT TOO ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE WRITE OFF. 4.4 THEREFORE SO FAR AS THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALIT Y IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF TRADIN G LOSS OF RS. 19 32 288/- ON ACCOUNT OF IRRECOVERABLE ADVANCES. 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 11 | P A G E ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF ON THE GROUND THAT IT CANNOT B E ALLOWED U/S 36(1)(VII) AS THE CONDITIONS U/S 36(2) IS NOT SATISFIED. THE CIT (A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NO . 4784/MUM/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 3-4.2010 AND HELD IN PARA 16 AS UNDER:- 16. THE LAST AMOUNT FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE ADVAN CES AGGREGATING TO RS.33 51 815/- MADE TO EMPLOYEES / STAFF. THIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AS BUSINESS LOSS UNDER SECTION 28 AND SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT SEE HOW THE AMOUNT CAN BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 37(1) BECAUSE T HAT SECTION SPEAKS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND A LOSS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE EXPENDITURE. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LOSS AND AN EXPENDITURE. WHEREAS AN EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMO UNT IS VOLUNTARILY SPENT BY HIM A LOSS IS SOMETHING WHICH FALLS ON HIM AB EXTRA A ND OBSERVATIONS TO THIS EFFECT MAY BE FOUND IN THE INCOME TAX LAW BY KANGA AND PALKHIV ALA NINTH EDITION PAGE 669 VOLUME-I. THUS WE ARE UNABLE TO APPROVE OF THE DEC ISION OF THE CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT HOLDS THAT THE LOSS IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 3 7(1). HOWEVER WE AGREE WITH HIM THAT IT IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS PROFITS INASMUCH AS THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE TO ITS STAFF AND EMPLOYEES IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAVE LEFT SERVICE AND IT HAS BECOME ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FO R THE ASSESSEE TO RECOVER THEM. THEY CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBTS AS RIGHTLY POIN TED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE AMOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUN T AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THE OBJECTION OF THE D EPARTMENT HOWEVER WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS BUSINESS LOSS BUT CLAIMED IT ONLY AS BAD DEBT. THE ASSESSEE MAY B E ILL ADVISED IN DOING SO BUT FOR THAT REASON ALONE THE DEDUCTION IF IT IS REFER ABLE TO SOME OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. IN OUR OPINION THE CIT(A) D ID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE AMOUNT AS BUSINESS LOSS UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. WE AFFIRM HIS DECISION. 5.2 FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THI S ISSUE. 6. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUN T OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON ADVANCES MADE TO GROUP CONCERN. 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E IS COMMON TO THE ISSUE M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 12 | P A G E INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 OF ITA NO. 5739/MUM/2008. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARA 2.1 ARND 2.2 OF THIS ORDER THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. 7. IN ITA NO. 3839/MUM/2009 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ONLY GROUND AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 59 06 08 3/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 36(1)(III) BY DISALLOWING PRO PORTIONATE INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND OTHER INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES BY APPLYING AVERAGE RATE OF INTEREST O N BORROWED FUNDS. 7.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS COMMON AND IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND NO. 1 OF ITA NO. 5379/MUM/ 2008 IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN PARA NO. 2.1 AND 2.2 THIS ISSUE IS DECI DED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN CROSS OBJECTION NO. 238/MUM/2014 THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OFRS. 31 17 324/- U/S 14A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT OWNED FUNDS FAR EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF IN VESTMENT GENERATING TAX FREE INCOME AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND RULE S MADE THEREUNDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS. 31 17 324/- DISALLOWED U/S. 14A BY HOLDI NG THAT RULE 8D IS TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY WHICH IS WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER . 8.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 13 | P A G E HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT. IT HAS BEEN STATED TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE OBJECTION INITIALLY BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL BENC H DECISION IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT R ULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FROM 1.4.1962. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & B OYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (321 ITR 81) IT WAS HELD THAT RULE 8D IS PROS PECTIVE IN APPLICATION AND APPLIES ONLY FROM THE YEAR 2008-09 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AND ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO IS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D FOR DISALLOWANCE /ADDITION U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. 167 ITR 471. 8.2 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY O PPOSED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THEN THE SUBSEQUENT DE CISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SU FFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 8.3 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN CROSS O BJECTION IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FR ESH FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT FILLING THE CROSS APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS COVERED AT RELEVAN T POINT OF TIME BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD. WHICH WAS REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE M FG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT AND HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 14 | P A G E THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITH IN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION ARE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PROVISION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY PR OVIDED IN THE ACT WITH THE OBJECT TO PREVENT THE DENIAL OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE WHERE A PARTY COULD NOT APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PRESCRI BED PERIOD OF LIMITATION DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. IT DOES NOT FACILITATE OR GIVE A RIGHT TO THE PARTY TO WAIT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME FOR A FAVOURABLE D ECISION IN ITS FAVOUR AND THEN CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEFORE THE APPELLATE A UTHORITY. EVEN IN A CASE WHERE AN ISSUE IS SETTLED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY T HE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL BUT THE SAID DECISION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER APPEAL AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT FINALITY OF THE DECISION ON T HE ISSUE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALL OWANCE U/S 14A THEN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF HIGHER COURT IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE DOES NOT EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR CHALLENGING THE ADDITION. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION FROM 12 AUGUST 2010 WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. L TD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WAS PASSED TILL 31.10.2014 WHEN THE CROSS OBJECTION WA S FILED. THEREFORE THE DELAY OF MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN EVEN THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE CROSS OBJECTION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE CROS S OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN ITA NO. 4421/MUM/2012 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ' RS. 2 71 48 996/- MADE BY AO ULS 36( I )(III) BY DISALLOWING PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON INT EREST FREE ADVANCES TO M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 15 | P A G E SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND OTHER INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES BY APPLYING AVERAGE RATE OF INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS .' 2.(A) 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF' R S. 9 82 33 478/- MADE ULS 14A R.W. RULE 80(2)(II) & (III) TO RS. 5 00 000/- O N ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO IT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST FR EE FUNDS AVAILABLE AND INVESTMENTS MADE. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FACTS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST AND OTHER A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FURNISHED IS NOT D IRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR INCOME OR RECEIPTS THE ONLY OPTION AVAI LABLE WITH THE AO TO WORK OUT DISALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III).' 2(B). 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD [2009] (313 ITR 34 0) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS FOR ASSESSEE TO SHOW BY P RODUCTION OF MATERIALS THAT SHARES WERE ACQUIRED FROM FUNDS AVAILABLE IN ITS HA ND WITHOUT TAKING BENEFIT OF ANY LOAN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CA SE AS DESPITE THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO IT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVA ILABLE AND INVESTMENTS MADE. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO SUCH MA TERIAL EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. WAS CORRECT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OFDHANUKA & SONS (339 ITR 3 19) (2011). ' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN M AKING ADJUSTMENTS FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB BY INCREASING THE N ET PROFIT AS PER P & LAIC BY AN AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D(II) & (III)'. 10. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF PROPO RTIONATE INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO SUBSIDIARIES. 10.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THIS GROUND IS COMMON TO THE GROUND NO. 1 OF ITA NO. 5379/MUM/2008 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECID ED BY US IN FOREGOING M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 16 | P A G E PARAS NO. 2.1 AND 2.2 THEREFORE IN VIEW OF OUR DE CISION IN GROUND NO.1 OF ITA NO. 5379/MUM/2008 WE DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST TH E REVENUE. 11. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D. 11.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT RULE 8D I S NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V S. DCIT (SUPRA) FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT TO SHOW THE SUFFICIENCY OF ITS OWN FUND. THEREFORE THE ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE C ONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE CI T(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 5 00 000 /-. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLE D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AT RS. 5 00 000/-. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QU A THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD. 12. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE/ADJUSTME NT OF THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB. 12.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE RULE 8D IS NOT A PPLICABLE FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AS PER RULE 8D IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. FURTHER AS PER EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 115JB THE EXPENDITURE INC URRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME HAS TO BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE B OOK PROFIT U/S 115JB THEREFORE THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD 17 | P A G E THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE TAX FREE I NCOME INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF RULE 8D AND AS PER LAW. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 5739/MUM/2008 569/MUM/2008 3839/MUM/2009 AND ONE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 238/MUM/2014 ARE DISMISSED WH EAREAS APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 4421/MUM/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF NOV.2014 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 14 -11 -2014 SKS SR. P.S COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR F BENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI