IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 458/2013  
 . 
 CIT 
 . 
 ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 HERO CORPORATE SERVICES LTD 
 . 
 ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Mr. Satyen Sethi and Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     23.10.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 
 1961 has to be dismissed for multifarious reasons.  The assessee had 
 earned exempt dividend income of Rs.1,96,57,658/-.  The respondent- 
 assessee had themselves disallowed Rs.17,26,027/- as expenditure incurred 
 on earning of exempt income under Section 14A of the Act.  The Assessing 
 Officer did not record any finding that the said disallowance was low or 
 not reasonable.  He applied Rule 8D and computed the disallowance at 
 Rs.91,22,219/-.  In other words, he made further disallowance of 
 Rs.73,96,192/-.  In the first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) noticed 
 factual inaccuracies in the figures taken by the Assessing Officer to 
 compute disallowance under Rule 8D.  In the grounds of appeal filed 
 before us, it is not alleged or stated that the factual inaccuracies 
 pointed out by the Commissioner (Appeals) are wrong or incorrect.  In 
 view of the factual inaccuracies, the Commissioner (Appeals) worked out 
 the disallowance under Rule 8D at Rs. 35,81,657/-.  The decision of the 
 Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted by the respondent-assessee.  The 
 Revenue, however, preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the 
 tribunal.  Thus, in the present case Commissioner (Appeals) has relied 
 and referred to Rule 8D and has recomputed the disallowance on the basis 
 of applicable and correct figures.  These figures are not disputed by the 
 Revenue in the present appeal in the grounds.  We fail to understand how 
 and why, therefore, this appeal has been filed.  The tribunal may have 
 made an observation that Rule 8D is not retrospective but that is 
 inconsequential in the present case, as Commissioner (Appeals) has 
 applied Rule 8D on the correct figures.  Disallowance has been made by 
 applying Rule 8D. 
 . 
 The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 OCTOBER 23, 2013/VKR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 5. 
 .