ORDER Per Shri. T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal is directed against the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a company. In the previous year ended 31-3-1983, corresponding to the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee had paid interest of Rs. 5,60,105 on deposits received from its shareholders. The assessee company had executed a hypothecation trust on 18-10-1982 in favour of three trustees who were to hold a charge on the stock and debts as well as the immovable property belonging to the assessee company for the benefit of the depositors as security for the repayment of the deposits. This charge for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000 had been registered under section 125 of the Companies Act. When the Income-tax Officer made the assessment on 4-8-1984, he did not make any disallowance under section 40A (8). On a review of that order the Commissioner of Income-tax was of the opinion that section 40A (8) was attracted inasmuch as the charge was not created in favour of the person who gave the loan but in favour of trustees and hence he directed the disallowance of 15% of the interest paid on the deposits under section 40A (8) of the Act. 3. The assessee is in appeal to contend that the charge was in fact in favour of the depositors inasmuch as the beneficiaries of the trust deed were the depositors and the creation of a charge by way of a trust was a normal mode of documentation followed by companies. It was stated that even the department had been satisfied by taking legal advice from the standing counsel as informed to the assessee and yet the disallowance had been made which indicated that the order of the assessment was not clearly erroneous and did not require to be reviewed. On the other hand, the revenue supported the order of the Commissioner by contending that the deed did not provide for a charge directly in favour of the depositors and did not fall within the exception of section 40A (8) (ix). It was also submitted that the deed provided for enforcement of the security only when the default exceeded Rs. 3 lakhs and since no deposits exceeded Rs. 3 lakhs, no charge was repeated in respect of any deposit. 4. It was also submitted that the deed provided for enforcement of the security only when the default exceeded Rs. 3 lakhs and since no deposits exceeded Rs. 3 lakhs, no charge was repeated in respect of any deposit. 4. On a consideration of the rival submissions we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to succeed. Section 40A (8) provides that if an assessee being a company incurs any expenditure by way of interest in respect of any deposit received by it, fifteen per cent of such expenditure shall be disallowed as a deduction. The Explanation to this section states that the term "deposit" shall not include in item (ix) amount received as a a loan from any person where the loan is secured by the creation of a mortgage, charge or pledge of any assets of the company and the loan is not more than 75% of the value of the assets. If the transaction of the assessee satisfies these conditions, then the provisions of section 40A (8) need not be applied. The assessee had taken deposits from the share-holders and had secured the repayment of the deposits by a trust deed creating a charge favour of the depositors. The Registered deed dated 18-10-1982 clearly states that the company creates a charge by way of hypothecation of the stocks, debtors, loans, advances and immovable property belonging to the company for Rs. 30 lakhs on pro rata basis. The view of the Commissioner that the charge should be directly in favour of the person from whom the loan is taken in untenable both in terms of the section and in terms of the trust deed. The section does not require that the charge should be made by a document directly in favour of the depositors. The trust deed is for the benefit of the depositors only and therefore the deposits are secured by the creation of a charge as required by the section. We find that the opinion of the standing counsel obtained by the department and kept in the file has taken the same view. The reason given by the Commissioner for applying the provision of section 40A (8) fails. 5. We find that the opinion of the standing counsel obtained by the department and kept in the file has taken the same view. The reason given by the Commissioner for applying the provision of section 40A (8) fails. 5. It would not be necessary to consider any other reason advanced by the revenue for, an order of the Commissioner under section 263 which does not stand on the reasons given in the order cannot be maintained by reasons not given in that order. However, for the sake of completeness, we may examine the other reason advanced by the revenue that in terms of the document no charge is in fact created because the security cannot be enforced unless there is a default in the repayment of the deposit exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs and admittedly there was no single deposit of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. This contention is also untenable because the operative portion of the document has already created a charge by the following provision :- "In pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of deposits received upto a total of Rs. 20,99,985 outstanding as on date as per Schedule-1 the company both hereby create charge by way of Hypothecation of the stocks, debtors, loans, advances and immovable property now belonging to the company for Rs. 30,00,000 (Rupees thirty lakhs only) on prorata basis." Thereafter, the clause referring to enforcement of security says that it shall be lawful to trustees to enforce the security by selling the assets of the company with the proviso that such powers shall not be exercised unless any of the following events occur, two of which are, "(a) There is a default in the repayment of deposit exceeding Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only.) (b) There is a default in the payment of interest and the arrears of such interests exceed Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only)." In the context of the charge having been created on the total deposits these clauses can only refer to a ceiling in respect of the aggregate repayment of deposits or interest and not any individual repayment of a deposit or interest. Otherwise the document itself will be infructuous inasmuch as the total deposits being only Rs. 30 lakhs the question of default of interest in one lakh is quite remote and could not be a ceiling prescribed for the operation of the enforcement provision. Otherwise the document itself will be infructuous inasmuch as the total deposits being only Rs. 30 lakhs the question of default of interest in one lakh is quite remote and could not be a ceiling prescribed for the operation of the enforcement provision. One of the canons of the construction of the document is such that it should be so construed as it makes it workable and not to be self-defeating. Reading the document as a whole, it is clear that the deposits have been fully secured and the transaction therefore falls within the exception provided in item (ix) of section 40A (8). It follows that the Income-tax Officer was right in not making the disallowance prescribed under that section and his order did not require to be reviewed under section 263. Therefore, the order made under section 263 is cancelled. The appeal is allowed.