2016 (6) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ied that the delay in filing of the appeal by 06 days, was due to reasonable cause, hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Revenue. 3. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication by us. 4. In ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under sec. 14A of the Act. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received dividend on mutual funds and shares, amounting to Rs. 28,56,600/-, which is exempted under sec. 10 of the Act. Therefore, he, applying sec. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act, disallowed Rs. 47, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee. 8. Before us, the Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 9. On the other hand, Authorized Representative of the assessee supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He submitted that the disallowance under the head administrative expenses, sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Rs. 2 Lac, which was admitted by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), should be sustained. 10. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a finding to the effect that during the year, no new investments in mutual funds and shares, were made by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Apex Packing Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 28/PAN/2016, order dated 27/04/2016. We find that the Assessing Officer while calculating the disallowance for administrative expenditure has taken the average value of total investments as appearing in the balance sheet as on the first day and in the last day of the previous year, hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the provisions of sec. 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states that 'boo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X