ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(2), CHENNAI vs. BEACH MINERALS COMPANY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

: Department by Mr.Shaji P.Jacob, Addl. CIT : Assessee by Mr.Raghav Rajeev Menon, Adv. : सुनवाई क+ तार"ख/Date of Hearing 07.02.2018 घोषणा क+ तार"ख /Date of : 07.02.2018 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

3.0 Ground Nos.1 & 4 are general in nature.

4.0 In regard to Ground Nos.2 to 2.6, it was submitted by the Ld.DR that the issue was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Sec.14A r.w.r.8D of the Act. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Redington (India) Ltd., reported in 2017 (1) TMI 318 dated 23.12.2016 wherein it has been held that when there is no exempt income during the relevant Assessment Year, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could be made. He vehemently supported the order of the AO.

4.1 In reply, the Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.2 It was a submission that the assessee has not claimed any exempt income during the relevant Assessment Year and consequently, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Redington (India) Ltd., no disallowance is called for.

4.3 We have considered the rival submissions.

4.4 As it is noticed that the issue is not squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Redington (India) :- 3 -:

Ltd., referred to supra and as it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed judicial discipline in the case of M/s.Redington (India) Ltd., referred to supra, we find no reason to interfere with findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, the Ground Nos.2 to 2.6 of the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

5.0 In regard to Ground Nos.3 & 3.1, it was submitted by the Ld.DR that the issue was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO in respect of employee’s contribution to PF, which was remitted beyond the prescribed due dates. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Case Appeal Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 & MP No.1/2015 dated 24.07.2015. It was a submission that the decision has not become final and was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He vehemently supported the order of the AO.

5.1 In reply, the Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra.

5.2 We have considered the rival submissions. :- 4 -:

5.3 As it is noticed that the issue in the said grounds are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra and as it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed judicial discipline by following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra, we find no reason to interfere with findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue.

Consequently, the Ground Nos.3 & 3.1 of the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on February 07, 2018, at Chennai. (एस जयरामन) (जॉज" माथन) (S. JAYARAMAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER