Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA & SMT. BEENA A PILLAI
ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Ld.CIT(A), Noida dated 18.03.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 and Assessee has filed Cross Objections, on the following grounds.
ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 Grounds in Revenue’s appeal: “1.The CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,60,145/- made on account of duty credit scrips received but not utilized, by following the order of CIT(A)VII, Delhi who had himself relied on the decision of Hon’ble apex court in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs C1T[1997] 225 ITR 746, a case wherein the issue dealt with is not even distantly similar to the one involved in this case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,60,145/- made on account of duty credit scrips received but not utilized by not appreciating that such duty credit scrips fetch free foreign exchange to the assessee and such scrips are cash assistance received by the assessee and are therefore taxable in terms of the provisions of clause (iii b) of section 28 of the I.T. Act., 1961.
3. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that the depreciation on computer peripherals is allowable @ 15% and not at 60% as claimed by the assessee.
That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal
on or before hearing.
5. That the order of CIT (Appeals) being erroneous in law and on facts deserves to be set aside/cancelled and the order of the AO to be restored.” Grounds in Cross Objection: C.O. 194/Del/2017 (In ITA 3485/Del/2014) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, suo motu disallowance of Rs.23.85 crores made by the Respondent under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) deserves to be deleted since substantial investments held by the Respondent, as at the end of the relevant year, were in group concerns/ subsidiary companies, which were made to acquire controlling interest or to serve business interests of the ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 Respondent, income from which is outside the purview of disallowance under the said section.
2. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, suo motu disallowance made by the Respondent under section 14A of the Act ought to have been restricted to Rs. 3.17 crores, being the amount of exempt dividend income earned by the Respondent during the relevant previous year. The Respondent craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary from the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”
At the outset Ld.AR submit that identical issue has been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA 4032/Del/2011 vide order dt. 24.03.2017, wherein it has been held as under. “88. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records and judicial decision placed before us.
On perusal of the same, it is observed that assessee had not undertaken any import of goods during years under consideration which is an admitted position. In our considered view, income does not accrue until imports are made and raw materials are consumed by assessee. Ld.DR has not brought any material contrary on record so as to deviate from findings of Ld.CIT(A). Respectfully, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries P Ltd. (supra), we are inclined to dismiss this ground raised by revenue. Accordingly the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed. 2.1. It is observed from the submissions advanced by both the sides that this factual difference between the year under consideration vis-a-vis assessment year 2006-07. Has not brought any material contrary to the record so as to deviate from the aforesaid findings of coordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07.
ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 Respectfully, following the same we dismiss ground no.1 raised by Revenue.
Ground No.2 raised by Revenue relates to depreciation at 60% of computer peripherals. At the outset both the parties submit that the issue stands covered by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. reported in 258 ITR 47 (Del.) wherein it has been held as under: “4. We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server etc. form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60%.” Respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground raised
by Revenue. In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed.
4. Cross Objection filed by assessee is regarding restricting suo moto disallowance made by assessee under section 14 A at Rs. 3.17 crores, being amount of exempt income earned by assessee during year under consideration. 4.1. Ld.AR, relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power company Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383, submitted that both assessee as well as revenue can raise a question before this tribunal for the 1st time, so long as the relevant facts are on record. Referring to the assessment order, and the discussion made regarding suo moto ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 disallowance made by assessee under section 14A, Ld.AR submitted that the cross objection is maintainable even though the order of Ld.CIT (A) are on different grounds. 4.2. In respect of the merits of the addition was concerned Ld.AR submitted that by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt.Ltd., reported in (2015) 59 Taxmann.com 295, submitted that disallowance if any, that could be made under section 14 A could not exceed exempt income earned by the assessee. Another ground raised in the cross objection is regarding exclusion of the investments made by assessee in the group concerns/subsidiary’s which were made to acquire controlling interest to serve business interest of assessee. It has been submitted that such investments would fall outside the purview of section 14. A. 4.3. On the contrary Ld. DR submitted that assessee cannot race this argument at this stage as it neither originates from the order of the authorities below. It was further submitted by Ld. DR that assessee had made suo moto disallowance of Rs.23,85,68,748/-, which was accepted by assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings. Ld. DR objected to the present cross objection of the assessee by submitting that the grounds raised in the cross objection to not arise out of the order of Ld. CIT (A). We have considered rival contentions raised by both the sides in the light of various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts. 4.4. It is observed that during the year assessee earned exempt income of Rs.3,17,92,844/- against which, a sum of 5 ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 Rs.23,85,68,748/-, was offered to tax as disallowance under section 14 A read with Rule 8D. Ld.AO passed assessment order, by making additions in the hands of assessee on other issues, against which assessee had filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT (A) granted relief to assessee on certain issues against which revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 4.5. A cross objection has been filed by Assessee in the appeal filed by revenue. The issue raised in the cross objection is regarding restricting disallowance under section 14 A to the extent of exempt income and to exclude the investments made by tenets group concerns/subsidiary companies which were made to acquire controlling interest or to serve the business interest of assessee. 4.6. It is also observed that revenue filed appeal on 06/06/14. assessee has stated to have received intimation of appeal filed by revenue on 11/09/17. It is thereafter that present cross objection has been filed by assessee on 26/09/17. Ld.Counsel thus submitted that there is no delay in filing present cross objection, as it is filed within 30 days of receipt of intimation of appeal being filed by revenue. 4.7. On perusal of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R Bamsi vs. CIT, reported in 83 ITR 223, it is observed that Hon’ble court relying upon views taken by various High Courts observed as under: “The only question is whether the Tribunal was entitled in law to refuse to allow the assessee to urge that ground in the appeal before it. Now a Division Bench of this High Court in Commissioner ITA 3485/Del/2014 ACIT vs. Jubilant Enpro P Ltd. (A.Y. 2010-11) and C.O.194/Del/17 of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 1168 (Bom.), after considering the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder, held that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are similar to the powers of an appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code. It has further held that the respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in his favour on any grounds which are available to him, even though the decision of the lower court in his favour may not have been based on those grounds. It has further held that if the appellant in his challenge to the decree of the lower court is entitled to take a new ground not agitated in the court below by leave of the court, there appears to be no reason why a respondent in support of the decree in his favour passed by the lower court should not be entitled to agitate a new ground and subject to the same limitation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view in Kanpur Industrial Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 59 ITR 407 (All.). That judgment has considered the position of an appeal under section 33 of the Income-tax Act along with the relevant Rules and that of an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22. The judgment holds that when the department files an appeal for an increase in the assessed income, the subject- matter of the appeal is the increase claimed by the department and the assessee can urge any ground of defence even though it might have been rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for showing that there should be no increase. It has further held that that the assessee is not liable to be assessed at all is a ground for showing that there should be no further assessment and the