Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & DR. B. R. R. KUMAR
1 ITA No. 127/Del/2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 127/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2014-15)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Amit Gupta Vs ACIT C-3/260, Janakpuri, Circle-19(1) New Delhi C. R. Building, AFJPG9771Q New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CA & Ms. Hasneeta Masha, CA Respondent by Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr DR
Date of Hearing 18.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2021
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12/10/2017 passed by CIT(A)-7, New Delhi for assessment year 2014-15.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. The CIT has erred in law and facts confirming the order of the AO wherein he has made addition of Rs. 4,05,684/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The CIT while confirming the order of the AO has grossly failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 14A shall not be applicable in this case.
2 ITA No. 127/Del/2018
The CIT while confirming the order of the AO has grossly failed to consider the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - [2011] 203 Taxmann 364 (Delhi).”
The assessee company e-filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 19/12/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,46,58,320/-. The assessment was passed on 29/11/2016 thereby assessing the income at Rs. 1,50,64,000/-after making disallowance of Rs.4,05,684/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not earned any dividend income and hence provisions of Section 14A are not applicable in assessee’s case. The Ld. AR further submitted that no expenses was claimed by the assessee during the present assessment year. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 61 Taxman.com 118 and CIT Vs. Holcim Ltd. 57 Taxman 28.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the assessment order as well as from the order of the CIT(A), it emerges that the assessee has not earned any dividend income. In-fact, the submissions before the Assessing Officer was also that there was no exempt income earned during the year and no expenditure was incurred during the year towards exempt income. Thus, in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 61 Taxman.com 118
3 ITA No. 127/Del/2018
(Delhi) and CIT Vs. Holcim Ltd. 57 Taxman 28 and also in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 402 ITR 640. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th Day of February, 2021 in presence of both the parties. Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 18/02/2021 R. Naheed * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
4 ITA No. 127/Del/2018