ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9214/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the grievance of the assessee was already resolved by the AO's rectification order. Since the rectification order was not brought to the CIT(A)'s notice, the appellate order became redundant.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income and later a revised return. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the AO passed a rectification order under Section 154, granting relief to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when a subsequent rectification order by the AO has already resolved the assessee's grievance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, Adv. / Mrunali
For Respondent: Shri V.S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 12/05/2026Pronounced: 20/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.9214/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2013-14)

ICICI Home Finance Company vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Limited Tax, Circle 14(2)(1), Mumbai. 6th Floor South Tower, ICICI Room No. 432, Aayakar Bhavan, Bank Tower, Bandra(East) S.O. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai- Mumbai – 400051. 400020. PAN: AAACI6285N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Adv. / Mrunali Kumbhar Revenue by : Shri V.S. Mahajan (Sr. DR) Date of hearing : 12/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 20/05/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14, date of order 31.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(2)(1), Mumbai [for brevity, the “Ld. AO”]

ITA NO.9214/Mum/2025; ICICI Home Finance Company Limited. order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act date of order 29.12.2016.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.255,01,83,940/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return declaring total income of Rs.255,61,49,590/- and claimed TDS credit amounting to Rs.19,48,08,932/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed with a disallowance of Rs.1,11,34,339/- under Section 14A of the Act. The Ld. AO computed the disallowance relating to exempt income by considering not only investments yielding exempt income but also investments yielding taxable income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification petition before the Ld. AO seeking rectification of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AO considered the rectification application and passed an order under Section 154 dated 20.02.2017, wherein the grievance raised by the assessee was duly addressed and the relief sought was granted. However, the assessee had not brought the said rectification order to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) continued to operate against the assessee, thereby superseding the rectified order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 154 of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 75, which was taken on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the grievance of the assessee already stood resolved by virtue of the rectification order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 2

ITA NO.9214/Mum/2025; ICICI Home Finance Company Limited. 154 dated 20.02.2017. However, since the impugned appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) continued to remain operative, the assessee was unable to avail the relief granted by the Ld. AO in the rectification proceedings. 4. The Ld. DR fairly accepted the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR and did not raise any objection there to. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessment in the present case was framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act. The Ld. AO had originally computed the disallowance under Section 14A by considering investments yielding exempt income as well as investments yielding taxable income. Subsequently, on the rectification petition filed by the assessee, and after considering the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble High Courts and various Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, the Ld. AO recomputed the disallowance under Section 14A and granted the consequential relief to the assessee vide order passed under Section 154 of the Act. However, since the assessee had already challenged the original assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A), and the rectification order was not brought to the notice of the appellate authority, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal. As a consequence, the assessee is unable to effectively enjoy the relief already granted by the Ld. AO in the rectification proceedings, since the impugned appellate order continues to subsist. We find that the grievance raised by the assessee already stands duly redressed by the Ld. AO through the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Act. In such circumstances, the impugned appellate order has effectively become redundant and infructuous. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned appellate order

ITA NO.9214/Mum/2025; ICICI Home Finance Company Limited. passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as infructuous and stands dismissed accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.9214/Mum/2025 is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of May 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 20/05/2026 Soumili Das, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai गाड�फाइल/Guard file. 5. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →