ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI vs. ERA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

2 ITAs-797,798/Del/2018 (Appeals)- 27, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) in the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, Revenue preferred these appeals.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of developing infrastructure facilities. They have filed their return of income for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and while computing the taxable income of the assessee for both the years, learned Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3, 61, 53, 268/- and Rs. 4, 46, 76, 162/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules1962 (“the Rules”).

Case of the assessee all through the proceedings is that the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year and, therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules have no application to the facts of the case and on that score the addition is not maintainable. Ld. CIT(A), in the appeal, accepted the contention of the assessee and while placing reliance on the addition of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) and also the decision in Holcim India private limited in and a deleted the addition.

Revenue is aggrieved by such deletion and preferred these appeals. Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order and submitted that insofar as the expenditure is concerned, if not in this year, in the future the assessee is likely to earn the dividends and because the 3 ITAs-797,798/Del/2018 assessee incurred some expenditure in the investment which will early exempt income, such part of expenditure allocatable to the investment has to be disallowed.

When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative entered appearance. It could be seen from the record that the notice sent to the address given in form No. 36 is returned with the endorsement of the postal servant that the addressee left. If the assessee is available in such address, such notice should have been served on the assessee. If for any reason, the assessee is not available there, it is for the assessee to make arrangements for service of such notice by furnishing the address where the assessee would be available, or to deliver it to some authorised person, or by making request to the postal department to detain the mail till the assessee claims the same. Since the assessee does not seem to have adopted any of these methods, we are the considered opinion that no time could be granted. Basing on the record we proceed to hear the counsel for Revenue and decide the matter on merits.

We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. There is no dispute and as a matter of fact authorities below categorically recorded that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during these assessment years and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd (supra) and Holcim India Pvt. Ltd (supra) are applicable to the facts of the case. There is no expiration from the 4 ITAs-797,798/Del/2018 Revenue as to how the binding decisions need not or cannot be followed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd. (2017) 99 CCH 0190 DelHC, (2017) 297 CTR 0452 (Del) decided on 16th August, 2017, after considering a catena of decisions, held the issue in favour of the assessee and observed that,- 9. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that, in Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), this Court had no occasion to consider the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11th February 2014 which clarified that Section 14A would apply even when exempt income was not earned in a particular AY. According to him, the other decisions of this Court in CIT-IV v. Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 338 (Del) and CIT-IV v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (Del) 282 did not actually discuss the above Circular of the CBDT and, therefore, would be distinguishable. 10. Mr. Hossain further submitted that there was nothing in Section 14A of the Act which suggested that exempt income had to necessarily be earned in the AY in question for the applicability of the said provision. He submitted that if the interpretation placed on Section 14 A of the Act by the above CBDT Circular was not accepted, the very purpose of Section 14A would be defeated. He referred to the decisions of the ITAT in ACIT v. Ratan Housing Development Ltd. (order dated 23rd May 2008 of ITAT Lucknow) Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 50 SOT 102 (Del).

In M/s. Redington (India) Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range – V, Chennai (order dated 23rd December, 2016 of the High Court of Madras in TCA No. 520 of 2016), a similar contention of the Revenue was negated. The Court there declined to apply the CBDT Circular by explaining that Section 14A is “clearly relatable to the earning of the actual income and not notional income or anticipated income.” It was further explained that, “The computation of total income in terms of Rule 8D is by way of a determination involving direct as well as indirect attribution. Thus, accepting the submission of the Revenue would result in the imposition of an artificial method of computation on notional and assumed income. We believe thus would be carrying the artifice too far.”

The decisions in CIT v. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc. 2014 SCC Online P&H 20357, CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Limited [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H), CIT v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR (All) 277 have all taken a similar view. The decision in Taikisha Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not specifically deal with this issue.

It was suggested by Mr. Hossain that, in the context of Section 57(iii), the Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax, West v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) explained that deduction is allowable even where income was not actually earned in the AY in question. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by this Court in M/s Cheminvest Ltd. (supra) where it reversed the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT by observing as under: “20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra), it is considered necessary to discuss the true purport of the said decision. It is noticed to begin with that the issue before the Supreme Court in the said case was whether the expenditure under Section 57 (iii) of the Act could be allowed as a deduction against dividend income assessable under the head “income from other sources”. Under Section 57 (iii) of the Act deduction is allowed in respect of any expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such 6 ITAs-797,798/Del/2018 income. The Supreme Court explained that the expression "incurred for making or earning such income?, did not mean that any income should in fact have been earned as a condition precedent for claiming the expenditure. The Court explained: “What s. 57(iii) requires is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income. It is the purpose of the expenditure that is relevant in determining the applicability of s. 57(iii) and that purpose must be making or earning of income. s. 57(iii) does not require that this purpose must be fulfilled in order to qualify the expenditure for deduction. It does not say that the expenditure shall be deductible only if any income is made or earned. There is in fact nothing in the language of s. 57(iii) to suggest that the purpose for which the expenditure is made should fructify into any benefit by way of return in the shape of income. The plain natural construction of the language of s. 57(iii) irresistibly leads to the conclusion that to bring a case within the section, it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure."

The decisions of the ITAT in ACIT v. Ratan Housing Development Ltd. (supra) and Relaxo Footwear Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (supra), to the extent that they are inconsistent with what has been held hereinbefore do not merit acceptance. Further, the mere fact that in the audit report for the AY in question, the auditors may have suggested that there should be a disallowance cannot be determinative of the legal position. That would not preclude the Assessee from taking a stand that no disallowance under Section 14 A of the Act was called for in the AY in question because no exempt income was earned.

In view of the above position of law, we are of the considered opinion that where there is no dispute of fact that no dividend income

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.