DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RATTHA HOLDING COMPANY PVT LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2228/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 December 2019AY 2015-164 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's rulings and a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held that Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. For the assessment year in question, it was agreed that the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be invoked for disallowance of expenses when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 18.12.2019Pronounced: 18.12.2019

O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in dated 29.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

Mr. S. Bharath, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Ms. Hemalatha. K, ACA represented on behalf of the Assessee.

2 -: 3. The only issue in the Revenue’s appeal is against the action of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules are applicable only when the assessee earns income which does not be part of his total income. It was fairly agreed by both the sides for the relevant assessment year that the assessee has not earned any exempt income.

4. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in the assessment year 2014-15, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington India Limited vs. ACIT [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 257 (Mad) and the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Limited [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Mad) had held that the assessee having not earned any exempt income, the provision of Section 14A cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee.

5. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.

7.

A perusal of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2014-15 in I.T.A.

3 -: No.576/Chny/2018 dated 31.07.2018 shows that the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows in para-3 to 5.

“3. M/s. Rathna Holding Company Private Limited, the assessee is a building promoter. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company had made investments in equity instruments and in subsidiary companies at Rs.1,27,33,79,496/- as on 31.03.2014 as against Rs.41,70,39,640/- stood as on 31.03.2013. Invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r.8D(ii) & (iii), the AI disallowed Rs.8,82,27,938/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) relying on the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in & 2221/Mds/2014 and I.T.A. Nos.2015, 2055 & 2056/Mds/2014, wherein the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Leena Ramachandran, Karnataka High Court in the case of Pradeep Kar vs. ACIT, upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer, dismissed the appeal.

4.

Aggreived, the assessee filed this appeal. The learned AR relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington India Limited vs. ACIT [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 257 (Mad) and the CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Limited [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 221 (Mad), TCA No.24 of 2017, pleaded that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income, section 14A cannot be invoked. Per contra, the learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. Since, the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following the Jurisdictional High Court decisions, supra, we hold that section 14A cannot be invoked and hence, allow the assessee’s appeal.”

8.

A perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee has not earned any exempt income. This being so, as it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year and also it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court referred to supra, we find

4 -: no reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th December, 2019 in Chennai.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →