HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 11, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 469/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO did not record any dissatisfaction with the assessee's calculation of disallowance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 13,31,414/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income and made a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 48,98,105/- under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) found this calculation correct but added it to the income. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 13,31,414/-, which was the exempt dividend income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A can be upheld when the AO accepted the assessee's calculation and no dissatisfaction was recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

Before: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & DR. BRR KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary
Hearing: 31.08.2022Pronounced: 31.08.2022

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant herein against the order dated 05.10.2017, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi (in short “learned Commissioner”) under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act”), for the assessment year 2012-13.

Haldia Coke and Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT

2.

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the Appellant declared its income to the tune of Rs.95,27,080/- by filing its belated return of income on dated 19.06.2013, which was selected for scrutiny. On perusal of P & L account and balance sheet, it was observed by the AO that the Assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.1,34,414/- and made huge investments for the purpose of earning dividend income/income which is exempt and not chargeable to tax under the Act.

2.1 On being asked by the AO, as to why the expenditure in relation to the earning/intended earning of exempted income be not disallowed as provided u/s. 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D duly notified for the purpose, the Assessee replied that it has suomoto disallowed Rs.48,98,105/- u/s. 14A of the Act.

2.2 The AO after considering the contention of the Assessee and the calculation of the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D by the Assessee, found the same to be correct. However, added the said disallowance of Rs.48.98.105/- in the income of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer also made other additions which are not subject matter before us.

3.

The Assessee being aggrieved with the additionsincluding in hand made by the AO, challenged before the ld. Commissioner, who

Haldia Coke and Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT vide impugned order restricted the said disallowance of Rs. 48,98,105/- to the tune of Rs.13,31,414/- on the ground that in the relevant year the Appellant claimed dividend income of Rs.13,31,414/- as exempt income, however, had not made any disallowance on account of expenditure attributable to the earning of the said exempt income. The ld. Commissioner while upholding the addition to the tune of Rs.13,31,414/- also relied upon various judgments including in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 372 ITR 694(Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed exempt income.

4.

The Assessee being aggrieved with the partly affirmation of the addition u/s. 14A of the Act, which was made by the AO, has preferred the instant appeal.It is a fact that the Assessing Officer while considering the contention and calculation of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D made by the Appellant, found the same to be correct and has not recorded any reason/dis-satisfaction qua calculation od disallowance made by the Appellant, as to why he was not satisfied with the appellant’s claim.It is also a fact the Assessee has received the entire divided income of Rs. 13,31,414/- from mutual funds credited under ‘Electronic Clearance Scheme’and no fresh investment was made during the year under consideration 4.1 Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as referred to above, in totality, we are unable to uphold the affirmation of the disallowance/addition to the tune of Rs. 13,31,414/- made u/s 14A of the Act. Consequently, we delete thesame.

Haldia Coke and Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31/08/2022

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →