BHARAT TALAKSHI CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 23(2), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

relates to the disallowance of Rs. 11,06,409/- u/s 14A of the Act. AO considered the above for disallowance out of the total claim of interest expenses of R. 16,37,827/-. AO is said to have ignored the fact that the assessee has adequate own funds and also the concept of “presumption” laid down in various judicial pronouncements. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the above stand of the AO.

3. Before us, at the outset, Ld AR for the assessee brought our attention to the binding judgment of the CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and also binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd vs. DCIT [2016] 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) and requested for directing the AO to apply the said ratios of the judgments.

4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material and the cited precedents of the High Court (supra), we of the considered opinion, the matter should be remanded to the file of the AO for adjudicating the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly we order. Thus, the grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th April, 2017.