PRIME SUITINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHILWARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore unwarranted.
What were the facts?
The assessee company did not earn any exempt income during the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,63,315/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additions are not based on facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT1,569 citing378 ITR 33 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer dated 06th June, 2018 emanating from assessment order under section 143(3) passed by ITO, Ward-4, Bhilwara on 30.11.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,63,315/- by invoking the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule SD of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and has not brought out any evidences on record which substantiates that it has incurred any expenditure for earning any exempt income.
Penalty U/s 271(1)(C) of IT Act1961 so proposed by A.O. is unlawful and unjustified as additions made are not based on the basis of the facts and hence should not be imposed. The assessee has consciously not made any /JODH/2020 Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd. concealment and furnished inaccurate particulars and has no mensrea”
2. None appeared for the assessee. However, the assessee has filed a written submission and requested to consider the written submission.
Ld. DR supported the order of the Lower Authorities. Findings & Analysis 4. In this case, the only issue involved is disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. It has been submitted by the assessee in written submission that during the year there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. The said fact is mentioned in the assessment order also. Thus, it is an admitted fact that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., in of 2016 has held that in absence of exempt income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be made. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) has also held that section 14A will not apply when exempt income was not earned during the year. 5. In the case under consideration, it is an admitted fact that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon’ble High Courts (supra), it is held that disallowance under section 14A is unwarranted. 2 /JODH/2020 Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed. 6. Ground no. 2 is consequential in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 17th August, 2023.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026