Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Chennai, in dated 31.03.2017 for assessment year 2014-15.
2 -: 2. The appeal is filed after a delay of 236 days. It is submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) was received by then Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Shri C. Snathanam, an In-Charge of the tax matters, who was resigned on 12.06.2017 and had not handed over the above order for further appeal. It was only during receipt of the giving effect order for assessment year 2015-16 with respect to carry forward of losses that the issue was brought to light.
Hence, the assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 236 days. The delay in filing the appeal is not deliberate or wanton and hence, the Ld. AR pleaded for condonation of delay in the interests of justice. We heard the rival submissions and condone the delay.
M/s. Rathna Holding Company Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, is a building promoter. While making the assessment for 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 AO disallowed Rs. 8,82,27,938/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. 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 ITA Nos. 2051, 2055 & 2056/Mds/2014, wherein the tribunal relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt.
3 -: Leena Ramachandran, Karnataka High Court in the case of Pradeep Kar vs ACIT, upheld the order passed by the AO, dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal. The Ld. AR relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington India Ltd. vs ACIT [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 257 (Mad) and the CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd., [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 Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We 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.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 31st day of July, 2018 at Chennai.