9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t delay of two days was due to a reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and entertain the appeal on merits. 2. In grounds No.1.1 to 1.4 of the appeal the assessee has disputed the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of adopting the annual letting value of the property by taking into consideration the notional interest on interest free deposit of Rs.75 lakhs and in not considering the fair rental value of the property as determined by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 3. At the time of hearing the ld. A.R. submitted that the similar issue on identical facts has been considered by the Tribunal by its order dated 09.05.12 for assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.2706/M/2010 along with the appeals for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal by following the earlier order of the Tribunal (supra) as mentioned hereinabove. 7. In ground No.2.1 to 2.4 the assessee had disputed the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs.1,71,36,351/- under section 14A of the Act. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an investment company, registered as a non banking finance company. The assessee company has shown an amount of Rs.18,90,14,306/- as dividend income which is exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee has computed the disallowance under section 14A of Rs.49,91,518/- as per statement of income and the return filed. However, the Assessing Officer by applying Rule 8D worked out the disallowance of Rs.1,71, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. in his reply could not controvert the above submission of the ld. A.R. 10. We have considered the submissions of the ld. representatives of the parties and the orders of the authorities below. We do agree with ld. A.R. that the ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason while confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, save and except stating that Rule 8D is applicable to the assessment year under consideration as per decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we consider it prudent to restore the matter to the ld. CIT(A) to decide this issue by a reasoned order after considering the submissions of the representatives of both the parties as per law. Hence, ground No.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
