Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s order confirming disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. The disallowances pertained to expenses claimed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D and deductions claimed under Section 57(iii) for the assessment year 2012-13.
Held
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, disallowance is not warranted. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the average investment should be restricted to investments yielding exempted income. The matter was restored back to the AO for re-computation. For disallowance under Section 57(iii), a further opportunity was granted to the assessee to justify expenses.
Key Issues
Whether disallowances under Section 14A and Section 57(iii) were justified based on the assessee's financial position and the nature of expenses.
Sections Cited
14A, Rule 8D, 57(iii), 143(3), 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
ORDER
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 1, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses of ₹6,12,255/- u/s 14(A) r.w. Rule 8D.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of several expenses CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of several expenses CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of several expenses aggregating to aggregating to ₹5,51,895/- which were claimed u/s 57(iii). 57(iii).
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed , facts of the case are that the assessee filed , facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.07.2012 declaring total income at return of income on 28.07.2012 declaring total income at return of income on 28.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs.49,11,498/-. The return of income filed the assessee was . The return of income filed the assessee was . The return of income filed the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015, t nt completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015, the nt completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015, t Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.6,12,255/- ; addition u/s 50C amounting to Rs.6,74,000/ addition u/s 50C amounting to Rs.6,74,000/ addition u/s 50C amounting to Rs.6,74,000/- and disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 57 of deduction claimed u/s 57(iii) (iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.5,55,895/ amounting to Rs.5,55,895/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) . On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A of sustained the addition in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A of sustained the addition in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act and disallowance made u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the the Act and disallowance made u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the the Act and disallowance made u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal appeal before us by way of grounds raised a before us by way of grounds raised as reproduced above.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record the relevant materials on record including the paper book including the paper book containing pages 1 to 10 filed by the assessee containing pages 1 to 10 filed by the assessee. In relation to ground n relation to ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had shown exempted income assessee had shown exempted income at Rs.75,000/ Rs.75,000/- and during assessment proceedings offered for assessment proceedings offered for suo-motu disallowance of disallowance of expenditure of Rs.609/ Rs.609/- but the Assessing Officer rejected the claim icer rejected the claim of the assessee and invoked Rule 8D of the Income of the assessee and invoked Rule 8D of the Income- -tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) and computed disallowance of (in short ‘the Rules’) and computed disallowance of Rs Rs.6,12,255/-. , which comprise of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules for indirect expenses of the int indirect expenses of the interest amounting to Rs.5,21,602/ erest amounting to Rs.5,21,602/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules for 0.5 percentile of 0.5 percentile of the average value of the investment amounting to Rs.88,640/-. The the average value of the investment amounting to Rs.88,640/ the average value of the investment amounting to Rs.88,640/ Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, submitted that assessee was Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, submitted that assessee was Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, submitted that assessee was having sufficient own fund and therefore, nt own fund and therefore, disallowance under disallowance under Rule8D(2)(ii) of the Rules was not justified ) of the Rules was not justified. In support thereof n support thereof, the assessee filed copy of the balance sheet to substantiate own funds assessee filed copy of the balance sheet to substantiate own funds assessee filed copy of the balance sheet to substantiate own funds and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and and relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 135 (Bombay) and CIT v. HDFC ower Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 135 (Bombay) and CIT v. HDFC ower Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 135 (Bombay) and CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay). Further regarding Bank Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay). Further regarding Bank Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay). Further regarding the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, of the Rules, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Special for the assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Spe for the assessee submitted that in view of the decision of the Spe Bench in the case of Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415/165 ITD 27 (Delhi (SB), the average investment should be restricted to the investment the average investment should be restricted to the investment the average investment should be restricted to the investment which had yielded dividend which had yielded dividend income during the year under income during the year under consideration. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a consideration. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a consideration. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a calculation calculation calculation indicating indicating indicating average average average value value value of of of the the the investment investment investment of Rs.18,600, which yielded dividend income. The Ld. Counsel for the which yielded dividend income. The Ld. Counsel for the which yielded dividend income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a disallowan assessee has filed a disallowance chart under Rule 8D(2) computed under Rule 8D(2) computed by the assessee which is reproduced as under: by the assessee which is reproduced as under: ALPESH GO SALIA A.Y. 2012 ALPESH GO SALIA A.Y. 2012-2013 WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AS PER WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AS PER WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AS PER RULE 8D
8D (2)(i) - Expenditure Directly relating to income which does not Expenditure Directly relating to income which does not form part of total income of total income 8D (2)(ii) Interest expenditure whichmis not directly attributable Interest expenditure whichmis not directly attributable Rs. 1582506 Rs. to any particular income or receipt A=Interest to any particular income or receipt A=Interest 18600 Expenses Rs.57087697 516 B=Average value of Investment (income from which B=Average value of Investment (income from which 8D (2)(iii) 93 0.5% of Average Investments (18600*0.5%) 0.5% of Average Investments (18600*0.5%) 609 Dissallowance U/s 14A Dissallowance U/s 14A of the I.T Act Note: Average Value of Investment Average Value of Investment Opening value of investment Opening value of investment Rs 18600 Closing value of investment Closing value of investment Rs 18600 Average Value of Investment Average Value of Investment Opening value of investment + Closing ing value of investment + Closing value of investment
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand, submitted that once the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied with the submitted that once the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied with the submitted that once the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied with the claim of the assessee invoking Rule 8D is mandatory and Assessing im of the assessee invoking Rule 8D is mandatory and Assessing im of the assessee invoking Rule 8D is mandatory and Assessing Officer has no option otherwise then to follow the Rule 8D. Officer has no option otherwise then to follow the Rule 8D. Officer has no option otherwise then to follow the Rule 8D.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record the relevant materials on record. As far as decision of the Hon’ble . As far as decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) and decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), it is (supra) and decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), it is (supra) and decision in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra), it is undisputed that the own fund of the as undisputed that the own fund of the assessee are sufficient to sessee are sufficient to covere the investment in the assets capable of earning exempte the investment in the assets capable of earning exempted the investment in the assets capable of earning exempte income, then no disallowance for interest invoking Rule 8D then no disallowance for interest invoking Rule 8D then no disallowance for interest invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court in the warranted. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court warranted. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under:
“8. We have heard learned counsel for both the p We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. In our We have heard learned counsel for both the p opinion the very basis on which the revenue had sought to opinion the very basis on which the revenue had sought to opinion the very basis on which the revenue had sought to contend or argue their case that the shareholder funds to the contend or argue their case that the shareholder funds to the contend or argue their case that the shareholder funds to the tune of over Rs. 172 crores was utilised for the purpose of tune of over Rs. 172 crores was utilised for the purpose of tune of over Rs. 172 crores was utilised for the purpose of fixed assets in terms of the balance sheet as on 31st March, fixed assets in terms of the balance sheet as on 31st March, fixed assets in terms of the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1999, is fallacious. Firstly, we are not concerned with the 1999, is fallacious. Firstly, we are not concerned with the 1999, is fallacious. Firstly, we are not concerned with the balance sheet as of 31 balance sheet as of 31-3-1999. What would be relevant would 1999. What would be relevant would be balance sheet as on 31 be balance sheet as on 31-3-2000. Apart from that, the 2000. Apart from that, the learned counsel has been unable to point out to us from the learned counsel has been unable to point out to us from the learned counsel has been unable to point out to us from the balance sheet that th balance sheet that the balance sheet as on 31-3-1999 showed 1999 showed that the shareholders funds were utilized for the purpose of that the shareholders funds were utilized for the purpose of that the shareholders funds were utilized for the purpose of fixed assets. To our mind the profit and loss account and the fixed assets. To our mind the profit and loss account and the fixed assets. To our mind the profit and loss account and the balance sheet would not show whether shareholders funds balance sheet would not show whether shareholders funds balance sheet would not show whether shareholders funds have been utilised for investments. Th have been utilised for investments. The argument has to be e argument has to be rejected on this count also. rejected on this count also.
Apart from that we have noted earlier that both in the order 9. Apart from that we have noted earlier that both in the order 9. Apart from that we have noted earlier that both in the order of the CIT (Appeals) as also the Appellate Tribunal, a clear of the CIT (Appeals) as also the Appellate Tribunal, a clear of the CIT (Appeals) as also the Appellate Tribunal, a clear finding is recorded that the assessee had interest finding is recorded that the assessee had interest finding is recorded that the assessee had interest-free funds of its own which ha of its own which had been generated in the course of the year d been generated in the course of the year commencing from 1 commencing from 1-4-1999. Apart from that in terms of the 1999. Apart from that in terms of the balance sheet there was a further availability of Rs. 398.19 balance sheet there was a further availability of Rs. 398.19 balance sheet there was a further availability of Rs. 398.19 crores including Rs. 180 crores of share capital. In this crores including Rs. 180 crores of share capital. In this crores including Rs. 180 crores of share capital. In this context, in our opinion, the finding context, in our opinion, the finding of fact recorded by CIT of fact recorded by CIT (Appeals) and ITAT as to availability of interest (Appeals) and ITAT as to availability of interest (Appeals) and ITAT as to availability of interest-free funds really cannot be faulted. really cannot be faulted.
If there be interest 10. If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a l assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the oan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our free funds available. In our opinion the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical opinion the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical opinion the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.'s case (supra) had the occasion to consider the Works Ltd.'s case (supra) had the occasion to consider the Works Ltd.'s case (supra) had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Woolcom decision of the Calcutta High Court in Woolcombers of India bers of India Ltd.'s case (supra) where a similar issue had arisen. Before Ltd.'s case (supra) where a similar issue had arisen. Before Ltd.'s case (supra) where a similar issue had arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the business and in these verdraft account for the running of the business and in these verdraft account for the running of the business and in these circumstances the appellant was entitled to claim the circumstances the appellant was entitled to claim the circumstances the appellant was entitled to claim the deductions. The Supreme Court noted that the argument had deductions. The Supreme Court noted that the argument had deductions. The Supreme Court noted that the argument had considerable force, but considering the fact that the contention considerable force, but considering the fact that the contention considerable force, but considering the fact that the contention had not been adva had not been advanced earlier it did not require to be nced earlier it did not require to be answered. It then noted that in Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s answered. It then noted that in Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s answered. It then noted that in Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s case (supra) the Calcutta High Court had come to the case (supra) the Calcutta High Court had come to the case (supra) the Calcutta High Court had come to the conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were deposi tax liability and the profits were deposited in the overdraft ted in the overdraft account of the assessee and in such a case it should be account of the assessee and in such a case it should be account of the assessee and in such a case it should be presumed that the taxes were paid out of the profits of the presumed that the taxes were paid out of the profits of the presumed that the taxes were paid out of the profits of the year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the business. It noted that to raise the presumption, ther business. It noted that to raise the presumption, ther business. It noted that to raise the presumption, there was sufficient material and the assessee had urged the contention sufficient material and the assessee had urged the contention sufficient material and the assessee had urged the contention before the High Court. The principle therefore would be that if before the High Court. The principle therefore would be that if before the High Court. The principle therefore would be that if there are funds available both interest there are funds available both interest-free and overdraft free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest ts would be out of the interest-free fund generated free fund generated or available with the company, if the interest or available with the company, if the interest-free funds were free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both presumption is established considering the finding of fact both presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT (Appeals) an by the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT.” 5.1 We further note that as far as disallowance of administrative We further note that as far as disallowance of administrative We further note that as far as disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned the special Bench of the special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that while working out disallowance under Rule 8D the average that while working out disallowance under Rule 8D the average that while working out disallowance under Rule 8D the average value of investment should be restricted to the investment which value of investment should be restricted to the investment which value of investment should be restricted to the investment which has yielded exempted income. In view o has yielded exempted income. In view of ratio of the decision of the f ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) and decision of the Special Bench in the case of Power Ltd. (supra) and decision of the Special Bench in the case of Power Ltd. (supra) and decision of the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd (supra), we feel it appropriate to restore feel it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for this matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for this matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D in the light of the ratio computing the disallowance under Rule 8D in the light of the ratio computing the disallowance under Rule 8D in the light of the ratio of the decisions cited above. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the of the decisions cited above. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the of the decisions cited above. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly all assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. owed for statistical purposes.
In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved with the In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved with the In ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance of Rs.5,55,895/ disallowance of Rs.5,55,895/- u/s 57(iii) of the Act for disallowance u/s 57(iii) of the Act for disallowance of the claim of deduction against the other income. Before us, the of the claim of deduction against the other income. Before us, the of the claim of deduction against the other income. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee ref Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred that under the head ‘income erred that under the head ‘income from other sources’ the assessee from other sources’ the assessee had shown the receipt amounting shown the receipt amounting to Rs.23,02,500/- and against which claimed expenses of and against which claimed expenses of Rs.19,10,270/- resulting into income of Rs.3,92,230/ resulting into income of Rs.3,92,230/ resulting into income of Rs.3,92,230/-. The receipt mainly include commission income o mainly include commission income of Rs.9,34,800/ f Rs.9,34,800/- and interest income of Rs.13,58,375/ income of Rs.13,58,375/- against which the assessee has claimed against which the assessee has claimed expenses of Rs.19,10,270/ expenses of Rs.19,10,270/- which comprises of accounts writing which comprises of accounts writing charges (Rs.20,000), convenience expenses (Rs.92,382/-) Bank charges (Rs.20,000), convenience expenses (Rs.92,382/ charges (Rs.20,000), convenience expenses (Rs.92,382/ charges (Rs.2013/-), depreciation (Rs.1 ), depreciation (Rs.1,32,420/-), professional fee ), professional fee (Rs.19,303/-), interest on loan (Rs.15,82,506/ ), interest on loan (Rs.15,82,506/-, car insurance , car insurance (Rs.20,708/-) and telephone expenses (Rs.38,938/ ) and telephone expenses (Rs.38,938/- -) . Though the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify whether those Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify whether those Assessing Officer asked the assessee to justify whether those expenses were incurred wholly and excl expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of usively for the purpose of earning of such income under the head ‘income from other sources’, earning of such income under the head ‘income from other sources’ earning of such income under the head ‘income from other sources’ he particularly asked about the interest on loan amounting to particularly asked about the interest on loan amounting to particularly asked about the interest on loan amounting to Rs.15,82,506/- as to as to whether same was incurred for the purpose of whether same was incurred for the purpose of earning interest income under the earning interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’ head ‘income from other sources’ but no co-relation between interest paid and interest earned between interest paid and interest earned between interest paid and interest earned was provided to the Assessing Officer by the assessee and therefore, the provided to the Assessing Officer by the assessee and therefore, the provided to the Assessing Officer by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance out of entire expenses to the Assessing Officer made disallowance out of entire expenses to the Assessing Officer made disallowance out of entire expenses to the extent of Rs.5,51,895/ extent of Rs.5,51,895/-. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee . Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is willing to file detail of the parties from submitted that assessee is willing to file detail of the parties from submitted that assessee is willing to file detail of the parties from whom loan were taken and interest was paid and where those loans whom loan were taken and interest was paid and where whom loan were taken and interest was paid and where were applied as to whether for earning the interest income or for whether for earning the interest income or for whether for earning the interest income or for any other business or investment purpose. The assessee also business or investment purpose. The assessee also business or investment purpose. The assessee also submitted that he will co submitted that he will co-relate the expenses incurred incurred against the receipt shown under the head ‘income from other sources’. In view receipt shown under the head ‘income from other sources’. In view receipt shown under the head ‘income from other sources’. In view of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to provide one more l justice, we feel it appropriate to provide one more l justice, we feel it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to justify claim of the expenses opportunity to the assessee to justify claim of the expenses opportunity to the assessee to justify claim of the expenses incurred. Accordingly the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in ccordingly the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in ccordingly the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is set aside and matter is restored back to the Assessing dispute is set aside and matter is restored back to the Assessing dispute is set aside and matter is restored back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in view of our direction above. or deciding afresh in view of our direction above. The or deciding afresh in view of our direction above. ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.