ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KOTA vs. M/S NARESH KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR, , KOTA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 670/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Assistant Commissioner M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar, Vs. of Income Tax, B-43, Bhamashah Mandi, Circle-1, Kota Kota. PAN No.: AADFN 5008 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/10/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M.

This is the appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of

the ld. CIT(A), Kota dated 14/06/2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the

revenue has taken sole effective ground of appeal, which is as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in: (i) deleting the addition of Rs. 19,018/- made by the A.O. U/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.r. 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 and in view of CBDT Circular No. 05/2014.”

ITA 670/JP/2017 2 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

addition of Rs. 19,018/- made U/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in

short the Act) read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short

the Rules and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014.

under:-

“I have gone through assessee’s submission and AO’s findings. Ground no 1 is general in nature and is not being adjudicated. As regards Ground of appeal no. 2, it is seen that the G.P. shown was 1% as against 1.05% in the immediately preceding year. On a turnover of more than 109 crores, this marginal decrease in my opinion is insignificant and could be due to various business factors which also cannot give constant G.P. year after year. When the department does not give any extra credit to a business for achieving a higher G.P. then it should also not be concerned with a minor decrease in the same especially when, as in this case, the A.O. has no specific defects highlighted in the books but has generalized his argument on the basis of absence of stock register quality wise & certain expenses not being supported by proper vouchers & been paid in cash. The assessee is a foodgrain dealer & in such a trade it is neither practical nor possible to maintain quality wise details as has been held by me in several cases of this nature earlier. Thus in the absence of proper argument to justify his contention of rejecting the books, I am not convinced with the A.O.’s decision to reject the books based on lower G.P. & non-maintenance of quality wise details of stock etc. Rejection of books u/s 145(3) is accordingly not upheld in

ITA 670/JP/2017 3 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

this case. As a result the estimated addition to the trading profits of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the A.O. is also directed to be deleted. This Ground of appeal is allowed. As regards Ground of appeal no. 3, looking to the turnover and the total expenses claimed under various heads, the disallowance of Rs.50,000/- appears to be unjustified and is directed to be deleted. This Ground of appeal is allowed. As regards Ground of appeal no. 4, related to the disallowance u/s 14A, the assessee has not earned any exempted income on his investments made nor has the firm received any dividend. In view of the latest judicial opinion in this regard, the A.O’s working of disallowance based on rule 8D is not justified. In the following cases, this proposition is more than amply clarified- HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in Redington (India) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Range-V, Chennai 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras) held- Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Condition precedent) - Assessment year 2007- 08 - Whether provision of section 14A is relatable to earning of actual income and not notional or anticipated income, hence, where there is no exempt income in a year, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to an assumed income - Held, yes (Relevant extract)

..7. Per contra, Sri. T. Ravikumar appearing on behalf of the revenue drew our attention to the marginal notes of s. 14A pointing out that the provision would apply not only where exempted income is 'included' in the total income, but also where exempt income is 'includable' in total income.

ITA 670/JP/2017 4 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

…….' The mandate of s. 14A is clear. It desires to curb the practice to claim deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income against taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentive by way of an exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income.'

ITA 670/JP/2017 5 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

of admittedly notional income, particularly in the context of effecting a disallowance in connection therewith.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI in Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax-IV 61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi) held- Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Applicability) - Assessment year 2004- 05 Whether section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in total income; hence, section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during relevant previous year - Held, yes (Relevant extract) 15. Turning to the central question that arises for consideration, the Court finds that the complete answer is provided by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 28. In that case a similar question arose, viz., whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 1TD 318. The Court also referred to three decisions of different High Courts which have decided the issue against Revenue. The first was the decision in CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [2014] 226 Taxman 45/49 taxmann.com 257 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which in turn referred to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518/189 Taxman 50 and CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd . [2009] 319 ITR 204. The second was of the

ITA 670/JP/2017 6 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 223 Taxman 130/45 taxmann.com 116 and the third of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd . [2015] 230 Taxman 63/55 taxmann.com 262. These three decisions reiterated the position that when an Assessee had not earned any taxable income in the relevant AY in question "corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for disallowance." 16. In Holcim India (P.) Ltd's, case (supra), the Court further explained as under: "15. Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further, whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable, may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into in the subsequent assessment year. For example, long term capital gain on sale of shares is presently not taxable where security transaction tax has been paid, but a private sale of shares in an off market transaction attracts capital gains tax. It is an undisputed position that respondent assessee is an investment company and had invested by purchasing a substantial number of shares and thereby securing right to management. Possibility of sale of shares by private placement etc. cannot be ruled out and is not an improbability. Dividend may or may not be declared. Dividend is declared by the company and strictly in legal sense, a shareholder has no control and cannot insist on payment of dividend. When declared, it is subjected to dividend distribution tax." 17. On facts, it was noticed in Holcim India (P.) Ltd's, case (supra) that the Revenue had accepted the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee in that case and that expenditure had been incurred to protect investment made. 18. In the present case, the factual position that has not been disputed is that the investment by the Assessee in the shares of Max India Ltd. is in the form of a strategic investment. Since the business of the Assessee

ITA 670/JP/2017 7 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

is of holding investments, the interest expenditure must be held to have been incurred for holding and maintaining such investment. The interest expenditure incurred by the Assessee is in relation to such investments which gives rise to income which does not form part of total income. 19. In light of the clear exposition of the law in Holcim India (P.) Ltd's, case (supra) and in view of the admitted factual position in this case that the Assessee has made strategic investment in shares of Max India Ltd.; that no exempted income was earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY and since the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee is not in doubt, the question framed is required to be answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 20. Since the Special Bench has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Moody's case (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 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

ITA 670/JP/2017 8 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

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." 21. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Vohra that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Moody's case (supra) was rendered in the context of allowability of deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is for the purpose of making or earning such income'. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression 'in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.’ The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody's case (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act. 22. In the impugned order, the ITAT has referred to the decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd’s, case (supra) and remanded the matter to the AO for reconsideration of the issue afresh. The issue in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) was whether the expenditure (including interest on borrowed funds) in respect of investment in shares of operating companies for acquiring and retaining a controlling interest therein was disallowable under Section 14A of the Act. In the said case admittedly there was dividend earned on such investment. In other words, it was not a case, as the present, where no exempt income was earned in the year in question. Consequently, the said decision was not relevant and did not apply in the context of the issue projected in the present case. 23. In the context of the facts enumerated hereinbefore the Court answers the question framed by holding that the expression does not

ITA 670/JP/2017 9 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar

form part of the total income’ in Section 14A of the envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A' in Ms. Amita Verma v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi 71 taxmann.com 91 (Delhi - Trib.) Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Dividend) - Assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11 - Assessee contended that during year it had no exempt income and, therefore, no disallowance under section 14A could be made - Assessing Officer relying upon decision of Tribunal rendered in case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Delhi) (SB) rejected assessee's contention - Whether since above decision of Tribunal had been reversed by jurisdictional High Court in case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi), it would have to be held that no disallowance under section 14A can be made, where there is no exempt income - Held, yes Based on the above legal precedents relevant to the facts of this case where no exempt income has been earned by the appellant to warrant disallowance as per the provisions laid down u/s 14A rwr 8D, the addition of Rs. 19,018/- is accordingly directed to be deleted.”

on the order of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the ld AR of the

assessee has relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

ITA 670/JP/2017 10 ACIT Vs. M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar 5. After hearing both the sides on this issue, we find that the revenue

was not able to controvert the findings as recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in

his order on facts as well as on law. Therefore, we find no reason to

interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same stands uphold.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/10/2017.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 09th October, 2017

*Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle-1, Kota 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Naresh Kumar Manoj Kumar, Kota. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 670/JP/2017) 6.

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत