Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE, BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE, BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 AaykarSadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. PAN No. AAACK7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri. Nikhil Pathak, A.R Revenue by : Shri. M.G Jasnani, D.R Date of Hearing : 04.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.2022
ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-7, Pune, dated 19.06.2018, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”), dated 29.12.2017 for A.Y 2015-16. The assesee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “ 1.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of an additional amount of Rs. 26,99,512/- (over and above of Rs. 1,79,050/- disallowed by the appellant company in its statement of total income) as expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D while assessing total income as per regular provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and book profit u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.2 The ld. CIT(SA) failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order about the correctness or otherwise of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act for such previous year and hence, there was no reason to apply the provisions of rule 8D for making the disallowance u/s 14A and accordingly the entire addition made of Rs. 26,99,512/- may kindly be deleted. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Pune for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the appellant company’s own case and not restricting the disallowance to Rs. 1,79,050/-.
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 2 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant company submits that in case , the disallowance u/s 14A is to be worked out by applying the provisions of Rule 8D, in that case, the investments on which no tax free income has been earned during the year under consideration should be excluded while determining the correct amount of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. r. 8D. 3. The appellant company craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” Further, the assessee had also raised before us “additional grounds of appeal”, which reads as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 46,25,109/- made u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii) without appreciating that no disallowance of interest was warranted on the facts of the case. 2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the own funds available with the assessee company were much higher than the tax free investments made by the assessee and hence, no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(ii). 3. The assessee submits that thegher education cess paid for the year under consideration educationcess and secondary and higher education cess paid during the year under consideration may kindly be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee.” It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal involved purely questions of law that would require adjudication on the basis of facts borne from the record, therefore, the same does merit admission. Qua the additional ground of appeal as regards allowability of “Education cess” and “Higher Education Cess” while computing the income of the assessee company, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the same was being raised on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Goa Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2020) 107 CCH 375 (Bom). Per contra, the ld. D.R did not object to the admission of the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal raised by the assesse before us. In our considered view, as the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal has sought our indulgence for adjudicating the aforesaid legal issues which would not require looking any beyond the facts borne from the record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of hot metal, pig iron, steel billets, blooms and rolled products and generation of power etc., had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2015-16 on 27.12.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 87,71,87,440/- Original assessment was thereafter framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2017, wherein after making an additional disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 73,24,621/- the income of the assessee company was assessed at Rs. 88,45,12,060/-.
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 3 3. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass i.e as to whether or not the lower authorities are right in law and the facts of the case in quantifying the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 at an amount of Rs. 73,24,621/-?. Shorn of unnecessary details, the assessee company which was in receipt of exempt dividend income of Rs. 9,93,863/- during the year, had in its statement of total income, on a suo motto basis, offered for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act an amount of Rs. 1,79,050./- i.e 15% of the salary paid to finance manager. Rejecting the disallowance that was offered by the assessee company u/s 14A of the Act, the A.O reworked out the same at Rs. 73,24,621/- i.eby triggering the machinery proviso contemplated U/rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1963, as under :
Sr. No Particulars Amount 1. Expenditure directly related to tax free income 0 2. Disallowance on account of Interest (a) Amount of Interest expenditure Rs. 9,07,50,557/- (b) Average value of investments Rs. 53,99,02,470/- (c) Average Value of the total assets as per balance Rs. 1059,35,76,910/- sheet. Disallowance = 2(a)* 2(b)/2(c) Rs. 46,25,109/- 3. 0.5% of the average value of investments b*0.5% Rs. 26,99,512/- Total disallowance as per Sec. 14A (1+2+3) Rs. 73,24,621/- Disallowance made by the assessee 0 Net disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 73,24,621/-
On appeal, the CIT(A) finding that the facts and the issue qua the disallowance u/s 14A remained the same as were involved in the assessee’s case for the immediately preceding year, i.e, A.Y 2014-15, therein on the same terms upheld the invocation of rule 8D for computing of the disallowance u/s 14A in the hands of the assessee. As regards the disallowance of the interest expenditure that was worked out by the A.O u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii), the CIT(A) in the backdrop of the claim of the assessee that it had sufficient self- owned funds to source the investments in the exempt income yielding shares, directed the A.O to verify the factual position and re-compute the disallowance u/Rule 8D(2)(ii) after excluding the interest expenditure that was directly related to earning of taxable income. Insofar the disallowance of the administrative expenses that was computed by the A.O u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(iii) the CIT(A) upheld the same.
Being aggrieved the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) before us. After arguing for some time qua the sustainability of the disallowance upheld by the CIT(A) u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the ld. Authorized Representative (“A.R”, for short) submitted that as per the settled position of law the disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of the
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 4 exempt income, therefore, the disallowance in the case of the assessee be restricted to the extent of Rs. 9,93,863/- i.e the amount of exempt dividend income that was received by the assessee during the year under consideration. On a specific query by the bench, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that he was confining his challenge to the disallowance u/s 14A only qua the seeking the restriction of the same to the extent of the exempt dividend income that was received by the assessee company during the year under consideration. Apropos his claim that “Education cess” and “Higher EducationCess” be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee company, the ld. A.R had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Goa Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2020) 107 CCH 375 (Bom).
Per Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (“D.R”, for short) did not raise any objection w.r.t the aforesaid contentions of the assessee’s counsel, viz. (i) confining of the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of the exempt dividend income that was received by the assessee company during the year in question; and (ii). the allowing of the “Education cess” and “Higher EducationCess” as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee company.
We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, and also considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R to drive home his aforesaid contentions. Insofar the claim of the Ld. A.R that unlike “rates” and “taxes” the amount paid by an assessee towards “Education Cess” or any “Other cess” viz. the Secondary and Higher Education Cess is not a disallowable expenditure u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we find that the said issue is squarely covered by the recent order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Goa Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2020) 107 CCH 375 (Bom).In the case before the Hon’ble High Court the following substantial question of law was inter alia raised :
“iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess is allowable as a deduction in the year of payment.” After exhaustive deliberations, the Hon’ble High Court had observed that the legislature in Sec. 40(a)(ii) had though provided that “any rate or tax levied” on “profits and gains of business or profession” shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, but then there was no reference to any “cess”. Also, the High Court observed that there was no scope to accept that “cess” being in the nature of a “tax” was equally not deductible in computing the income
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 5 chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. It was further observed that if the legislature would had intended to prohibit the deduction of amounts paid by an assessee towards say, “education cess” or any other “cess”, then, it could have easily included a reference to “cess” in clause (ii) of Section 40(a). On the basis of its aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble High Court had concluded that now when the legislature had not provided for any prohibition on the deduction of any amount paid towards “cess” in clause (ii) of Sec. 40(a), therefore, holding to the contrary would amount to reading something which is not to be found in the text of the provision of Sec. 40(a)(ii). Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court had concluded that there was no prohibition on the deduction of any amount paid towards “cess” in Sec. 40(a)(ii), while computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”, observing as under :
“16. The aforesaid question arises in the context of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) which inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38 of the IT Act, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, - (a) in the case of any assessee – (ia)........................... (ib)................................ (ic) …............................ (ii) any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains.
[Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes and shall be deemed always to have included any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90 or, as the case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91.]
[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any 9 TXA17&18-13 dt.28.02.2020 sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A;]
Therefore, the question which arises for determination is whether the expression “any rate or tax levied” as it appears in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act includes “cess”. The Appellant – Assessee contends that the expression does not include “cess” and therefore, the amounts paid towards “cess” are liable to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.
However, the Respondent – Revenue contends that “cess” is also included in the scope and import of the expression “any rate or tax levied” and consequently, the amounts paid towards the “cess” are not liable for deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. 18. In relation to taxing statute, certain principles of interpretation are quite well settled. In New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. VsRaval, 37 ITR 41 (Bom.), it is held that one safe and infallible principle, which is of guidance in these matters, is to read the words through and see if the rule is clearly stated. If the language employed gives the rule in words of sufficient clarity and precision, nothing more requires to be done. Indeed, in such a case the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise :Absolutasententiaexpositore non indiget. The language used by the Legislature best declares its intention and must be accepted as decisive of it.
Besides, when it comes to interpretation of the IT Act, it is well established that no tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay a burden on him. The subject cannot be taxed unless he comes within the letter of the law and
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 6
the argument that he falls within the spirit of the law cannot be availed of by the department. [See CIT vs Motors & General Stores 66 ITR 692 (SC)].
In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said.
There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)].
There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee and it should be so construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. Further, the interpretation cannot go to the extent of reading something that is not stated in the provision [See AGS Tiber Vs CIT 233 ITR 207].
Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the legislature, in Section 40(a)(ii) has provided that “any rate or tax levied” on “profits and gains of business or profession” shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. There is no reference to any “cess”. Obviously therefore, there is no scope to accept Ms. Linhares's contention that “cess” being in the nature of a “Tax” is equally not deductable in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. Acceptance of such a contention will amount to reading something in the text of the provision which is not to be found in the text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act.
If the legislature intended to prohibit the deduction of amounts paid by a Assessee towards say, “education cess” or any other “cess”, then, the legislature could have easily included reference to “cess” in clause (ii) of Section 40(a) of the IT Act. The fact that the legislature has not done so means that the legislature did not intend to prevent the deduction of amounts paid by a Assessee towards the “cess”, when it comes to computing income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.
The legislative history bears out that the Income Tax Bill, 1961, as introduced in the Parliament, had Section 40(a)(ii) which read as follows :
“(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains”
However, when the matter came up before the Select Committee of the Parliament, it was decided to omit the word “cess” from the aforesaid clause from the Income Tax Bill, 1961. The effect of the omission of the word “cess” is that only any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession are to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “ profits and gains of business or profession”. Since the deletion of expression “cess” from the Income Tax Bill, 1961, was deliberate, there is no question of reintroducing this expression in Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act and that too, under the guise of interpretation of taxing statute.
In fact, in the aforesaid precise regard, reference can usefully be made to the Circular No. F. No.91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18th May, 1967 issued by the CBDT which reads as follows :-
“Interpretation of provision of Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act, 1961–Clarification regarding. “Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the Income Tax Officer has disallowed the ‘cess' paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of section 10(4) of the Old Act and Section 40(a)(ii) of the new Act.
The view of the Income Tax Officer is not correct. Clause 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Bill, 1961 as introduced in the Parliament stood as under:-
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 7
"(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains".
When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word ‘cess' from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word ‘cess' is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards.
The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the Income Tax Officers so that further litigation on this account may be avoided.[Board's F. No.91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18-5-1967.]”
The CBDT Circular, is binding upon the authorities under the IT Act like Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. The CBDT Circular is quite consistent with the principles of interpretation of taxing statute. This, according to us, is an additional reason as to why the expression “cess” ought not to be read or included in the expression “any rate or tax levied” as appearing in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act.
In the Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession'. In the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 the expression “cess” is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income Tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament. However, the Select Committee recommended the omission of expression “cess” and consequently, this expression finds no place in the final text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The effect of such omission is that the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) does not include, “cess” and consequently, “cess” whenever paid in relation to business, is allowable as deductable expenditure.
In Kanga and Palkhivala's “The Law and Practice of Income Tax” (Tenth Edition), several decisions have been analyzed in the context of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. There is reference to the decision of Privy Council in CIT VsGurupadaDutta 14 ITR 100, where a union rate was imposed under a Village Self Government 15 TXA17&18-13 dt.28.02.2020 Act upon the assessee as the owner or occupier of business premises, and the quantum of the rate was fixed after consideration of the 'circumstances' of the assessee, including his business income. The Privy Council held that the rate was not 'assessed on the basis of profits' and was allowable as a business expense. Following this decision, the Supreme Court held in JaipuriaSamla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd Vs CIT [82 ITR 580] that the expression 'profits or gains of any business or profession' has reference only to profits and gains as determined in accordance with Section 29 of this Act and that any rate or tax levied upon profits calculated in a manner other than that provided by that section could not be disallowed under this sub-clause. Similarly, this sub-clause is inapplicable, and a deduction should be allowed, where a tax is imposed by a district board on business with reference to 'estimated income' or by a municipality with reference to 'gross income'. Besides, unlike Section 10(4) of the 1922 Act, this sub-clause does not refer to 'cess' and therefore, a 'cess' even if levied upon or calculated on the basis of business profits may be allowed in computing such profits under this Act.
The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Income Tax Appeal No.52/2018 decided on 31st July, 2018 (Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs CIT Range-2, Kota ), by reference to the aforesaid CBDT Circular dated 18th May, 1967 has held 16 TXA17&18-13 dt. 28.02.2020 that the ITAT erred in holding that the “education cess” is a disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee.
Mr. Ramani, in fact pointed out three decisions of ITAT, in which, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.(supra) was followed and it was held that the amounts paid by the Assessee towards the 'education cess' were liable for deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head of “profits and gains of business or profession”. They are as follows :- (i) DCIT Vs Peerless General Finance and Investment and Co. Ltd. (ITA No.1469 and 1470/Kol/2019 decided on 5th December, 2019 by the ITAT, Calcutta; (ii) DCIT Vs Graphite India Ltd. (ITA No.472 and 474 Co. No.64 and 66/Kol/2018 decided on 22nd November, 2019 )by the ITAT, Calcutta; (iii) DCIT Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (ITA No.1111 and 1112/PUN/2017 decided on 25th July, 2019) by the ITAT, Pune.
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 8
Again, Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue was unable to say whether the Revenue had instituted the appeals in the aforesaid matters. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submitted that to the best of his research, no appeals were instituted by the Revenue against the aforesaid decisions of the ITAT.
The ITAT, in the impugned judgment and order, has reasoned that since “cess” is collected as a part of the income tax and fringe benefit tax, therefore, such “cess” is to be construed as “tax”. According to us, there is no scope for such implications, when construing a taxing statute. Even, though, “cess” may be collected as a part of income tax, that does not render such “cess”, either rate or tax, which cannot be deducted in terms of the provisions in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. The mode of collection, is really not determinative in such matters.
Ms. Linhares, has relied upon M/s Unicorn Industries Vs Union of India and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 1567 in support of her contention that “cess” is nothing but “tax” and therefore, there is no question of deduction of amounts paid towards “cess” when it comes to computation of income chargeable under the head profits or gains of any business or profession.
The issue involved in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) was not in the context of provisions in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Rather, the issue involved was whether the 'education cess, higher education cess and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD)' on it could be construed as “duty of excise” which was exempted in terms of Notification dated 9th September, 2003 in respect of goods specified in the Notification and cleared from a unit located in the Industrial Growth Centre or other specified areas with the State of Sikkim. The High Court had held that the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD could not be included in the expression “duty of excise” and consequently, the amounts paid towards such cess or NCCD did not qualify for exemption under the exemption Notification. This view of the High Court was upheld by the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries (supra ).
The aforesaid means that the Supreme Court refused to regard the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD as “duty of excise” when it came to construing exemption Notification. Based upon this, Mr. Ramani contends that similarly amounts paid by the Appellant – Assessee towards the “cess” can never be regarded as the amounts paid towards the “tax” so as to attract provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. All that we may observe is that the issue involved in Unicorn Industries (supra ) was not at all the issue involved in the present matters and therefore, the decision in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) can be of no assistance to the Respondent – Revenue in the present matters.
Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue however submitted that the Appellant – Assessee, in its original return, had never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as “cess”. She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) to submit that the Assessing Officer, was not only quite right in denying such a deduction, but further the Assessing Officer had no power or jurisdiction to grant such a deduction to the Appellant – Assessee. She submits that this is what precisely held by the ITAT in its impugned judgments and orders and therefore, the same, warrants no interference.
Although, it is true that the Appellant – Assessee did not claim any deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards “cess” in their original return of income nor did the Appellant – Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant – Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The record bears out that such deduction was clearly claimed by the Appellant – Assessee, both before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT.
In CIT VsPruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336, one of the questions of law which came to be framed was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT, in law, was right in holding that the claim of deduction not made in the original returns and not supported by revised return, was admissible. The Revenue had relied upon Goetze (supra ) and urged that the ITAT had no power to allow the claim for deduction. However, the Division Bench, whilst proceeding on the assumption that the Assessing Officer in terms of law laid down in Goetze (supra) had no power, proceeded to hold that the Appellate Authority under the IT Act had sufficient powers to permit such a deduction. In taking this view, the Division Bench relied
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 9 upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd Vs CIT (199 ITR 351) to hold that the Appellate Authorities under the IT Act have very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the Assessee. The Appellate Authorities may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing Officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the Assessee in accordance with law. 40. The decision in Goetze (supra) upon which reliance is placed by the ITAT also makes it clear that the issue involved in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the powers of the ITAT under section 254 of the said Act. This means that in Goetze (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with the extent of the powers of the appellate authorities but the observations were in relation to the powers of the assessing authority. This is the distinction drawn by the division Bench in Pruthvi Brokers (supra) as well and this is the distinction which the ITAT failed to note in the impugned order. 41. Besides, we note that in the present case, though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised return, the Appellant – Assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before the assessment could be completed. However, even if we proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for deduction in such letter, the Commissioner ( Appeals ) or the ITAT, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed was duty bound to consider such claim. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with Ms. Linhare's contention based upon the decision in Goetze (supra ). 42. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the substantial question of law No.(iii) in Tax Appeal No.17 of 2013 and the sole substantial question of law in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2013 is also required to be answered in favour of the Appellant – Assessee and against the Respondent- Revenue. To that extent therefore, the impugned judgments and orders made by the ITAT warrant interference and modification. 43. Thus, we answer all the three substantial questions of law framed in Tax Appeal No.17 of 2013 in favour of the Appellant – Assessee and against the Respondent -Revenue. Similarly, we answer the sole substantial question of law framed in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2013, in favour of the Appellant – Assessee and against the Respondent – Revenue.” We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations respectfully follow the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Gold Limited (supra), and therein conclude that as “Education Cess” and Secondary and Higher Education Cess is not disallowable as a deduction u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act, therefore, the claim of the assessee seeking deduction of the same while computing its income for the year under consideration merits acceptance. The “additional ground of appeal no. 3”raised by the assessee is allowed.
We shall now deal with the claim of the ld. A.R that the disallowance u/s 14A be restricted to the extent of the exempt dividend income of Rs. 9,93,863/- that was received by the assessee company during the year under consideration. We are principally in agreement with the claim of the ld. A.R that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of the exempt income. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Joint Investments Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del) (ii) DCIT Vs. Craft Builders and Constructions (2019) 414 ITR 122 (Del) [SLP filed by the revenue was thereafter dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 112 taxman.com 322 (SC)]
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 10 (iii) Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ITA 149 of 2017, dated 23.04.2019 (Bom) (iv) M/s Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi) (v) CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani Marketing Inc.(2014) 226 Taxman 45 (P&H) (vi) CIT Vs.Hero Cycle Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (vii) CIT Vs. Winsome Textiles Industries Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P & H) (viii) CIT Vs. Corrtech Energy (P) Ltd. (2014) 223 taxman.com 130 (Guj) (ix) CIT Vs. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 63 (All) (x). Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-10 Vs. HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd., ITA No. 1672 of 2016; dated 04.02.2019 (Bom) We, thus, finding favor with the claim of the ld. A.R that the disallowance u/s 14A be restricted to the amount of the exempt dividend income of Rs. 9,93,863/- that was received by the assessee during the year, therein, direct the A.O accordingly. The Grounds of appeal No(s). 1.1 to 1.3, 2 a/w additional grounds of appeal no(s).1 & 2 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 9. The Ground of appeal No. 3 being general is dismissed as not pressed.
Resultantly, the appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on _05/01/2022.
Sd/- sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Place : Pune Date :05.01.2022 आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 5. विभागीयप्रविविवि, आयकरअपीलीयअविकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard file. //TRUE COPY// सत्यावपिप्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायकिंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, / ITAT,Pune
Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-14, Pune ITA No. 1403/Pun/2018 – A.Y 2015-16 11
Date 1. Draft dictated on 2. Draft placed before author 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File comes back to PS/Sr. PS 8. Uploaded on 9. File sent to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the AR 11. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 12. Date of dispatch of Order.