FUTURE IDEAS CO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT -9, MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal CIT 9, Mumbai passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dated 14.03.2016 for A.Y. 2011-12.

1. BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income - tax - 9, Mumbai ["Ld. CIT"], erred in framing the revision order u/s. 263 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] by not giving proper, sufficient and effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 1.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order is required to be held as bad and illegal in breach of the principles of natural justice, as well as non-application of mind to the facts and the contentions brought on record by the Appellant.

2. REVISION ILLEGAL 2.1 The Ld. CIT erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act, revising the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143 (3) of the Act. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order is bad, illegal and void as necessary pre - conditions for initiating the revision proceeding as well as the completion thereof were not fulfilled. 2.3 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the CIT failed to appreciate that: (i) The order which he was seeking to revise had already merged with the appellate order and, accordingly, was not the "record" within the meaning of section 263 of the Act; (ii) In any case, the assessment order framed was not "erroneous" within the meaning of section 263 of the Act; and (iii) The assessment order was not "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. 2.4 The Ld. CIT erred in holding that the A.O. had failed to make disallowance of interest u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. the Rules and, therefore, the order of the A.O. was erroneous and judicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.5 The Ld. CIT erred in giving direction to the A.O. to consider the issue of the disallowable u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D (ii) of the Income – tax Rules, 1962 ["the Rules"]. 2.6 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no revision u/s. 263 of the Act was called for. ON MERITS 3.1 The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that: (i) The interest payment was fully allowable u/s. 36 (1) (iii) of the Act; and (ii) Even assuming and otherwise also, just because the interest expenses is allowable u/s. 57 (iii) of the Act, there is no automatic application of section 14A of the Act. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such revision was called for even on merits also.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above ground at the time of hearing.” 4.2.1 The learned A.R. of the assessee argued and contended that the Learned Principal CIT had erroneously and illegally invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. According to the learned A.R., a perusal of paras 4 to 4.3 of the order of assessment, to which he drew the attention of the Bench, would establish that the exercise of scrutiny proceedings was almost entirely devoted to examination and consideration of the issue of the disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D to be made in the case on hand for the year under consideration. It was submitted that details called by the AO were filed by the assessee, inquiries thereon were made by the AO specifically with regard to the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D and much of this finds mention in the order of assessment sought to be revised. It was further submitted that the assessee had not incurred any interest cost as it was having sufficient own funds for making investment in associate and subsidiary concerns as promoters and these were examined by the AO alongwith reasons for such investment; as was the details of business transactions between these concerns and the assessee resulting in income to the assessee. This, it is contended, clearly established the fact that the assessee had sufficient own Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. funds to make the investments in group/subsidiary concerns which are strategic investments, made out of commercial expediency and not for earning of profits; made solely for the purpose of its business and therefore the AO held that the interest is to be excluded from the ambit of disallowance, ostensibly under section 14 r.w. rule 8D(2)(ii). It is submitted that the above established beyond doubt that the AO has examined and verified in detail the aspect of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, before reaching the conclusion and rendering the finding that no disallowance was called for from interest, since the assessee had sufficient own funds to make the investments, inter alia, in associate and subsidiary concerns for business purposes of the assessee. It is after complete examination of the assessee’s submission that he rejected the assessee’s claim that it had not incurred any expenditure for earning of exempt income and made the disallowance of `24,79,503/- under section 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. Therefore, it is clear that the AO has duly applied his mind to the applicability of Rule 8D(2) and had arrived at definite conclusions that disallowance was not called for under rule 8D(2)(ii), but was called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 4.2.2 According to the learned A.R. a perusal of the show cause notice indicates that proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the records of assessment and does not allege that the assessment records, details/explanations filed by the assessee were insufficient, inadequate or not existent for the purpose of considering the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order about there being no inquiry or inadequate inquiry on the part of the AO or any lapse on his part, either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act. In fact in the impugned order also, it appears that no further inquiry or verification was required by the learned Principal CIT and he proceeded directly to conclude on the basis of the very same records that disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules was called for; without assigning any reasons why such disallowance was called for, as if it was to Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. be applied automatically without having regard to the particular facts of the case. 4.2.3 It has been contended that the impugned order under section 263 of the Act is bad in law, as the learned Principal CIT has travelled beyond the issue on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued. As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Principal CIT has taken a totally new ground, i.e. the applicability of the provisions of section 36(i)(iii)/section 57(iii) of the Act; of which there was not even a mention in the show cause notice dated 16.12.2015 or in the course of revision proceedings. This, the learned A.R. argues, is clearly contrary to the settled legal position that a revision order cannot be passed on an issue different from the issue mentioned in the show cause notice. In support of this proposition, the learned A.R., inter alia, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) CIT vs. Smt. R.G. Umaranee (2003) 265 ITR 507 (Mad) (ii) CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del) (iii) Colorcraft vs. Income Tax Officer (2007) 105 ITD 599 (Mum) (iv) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Industrial Estate (1995) 211 ITR 336 (AP) 4.2.4 The learned A.R. submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Principal CIT on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sujani Textiles P. Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 653 (Mad) is not tenable as it is clearly distinguishable on facts from the facts on hand. It was a case where the assessee therein had advanced some amount to a broker, who in turn loaned it to a Director of the assessee company. The assessee stopped receiving interest income on such amount. It was in that factual circumstances that the claim of the assessee for deduction of the interest expenses on the amount borrowed to give such loan was held to be disallowable both under the head ‘business income’ as well as under the alternate claim under section 57(ii) of the Act. It is submitted that the facts and issues of the assessee in the case on hand are totally different.

Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. 4.2.5 The learned A.R. of the assessee further submits that no revision under section 263 of the Act is permissible by CIT if enquiry has already been conducted by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings; as has been carried out by the AO in the case on hand. In the case on hand it is evident from the order of assessment that the AO conducted enquiries in respect of disallowance to be made under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules and has applied his mind to this issue. It is well settled position that if some inquiry has been made by the AO in the assessment proceedings, even if inadequate, that cannot clothe the CIT with jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely because he can form a different opinion in the matter. In support of the proposition that, since the AO has made inquiries in the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the disallowance to be made under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules and applied his mind to render findings that no disallowance of interest was called for as no interest cost was claimed since the assessee had sufficient own funds which was almost entirely invested on investments with group/subsidiary concerns which was for business purposes, but however held that disallowance was called for under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the learned CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter; reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to be incurred not for the purpose of business, but incurred for the purpose of earning tax free income, to that extent section 14A of the Act gets attracted. Conversely, to the extent the interest expenditure is found to be related not to the earning of exempt income, the same would be allowable under section 36(i)(iii) of the Act if the same is incurred for the purposes of Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. assessee’s business. It is contended that there is no scope for invoking both the sections 14A and 36(i)(iii) of the Act simultaneously as this would amount to making double disallowance. In the case on hand, the order of assessment clearly establishes that the AO after considering and verifying the assessee’s submissions in this regard, at paras 4.2 and 4.3 of the order of assessment had arrived at a definite conclusion that no interest was to be disallowed as the assessee had sufficient on funds to cover the investments made ; which were largely strategic investments in group concerns. It is contended that as decided in the case of PHIL Corporation Ltd. (2011 – TIOL-432-HC-MUM-IT) this is in consonance with settled legal position that the strategic investments made by an assessee in group concerns for the purpose of business does not attract any disallowance under section 14A of the Act. According to the learned A.R. of the assessee, it is also settled legal position that interest expenditure incurred in respect of loans used for the purpose of making strategic investments in group concerns is allowable as business expenditure under section 36(i)(iii) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was, inter alia, placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Spencers & Co. Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 644 (Mad) and CIT vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. (2013) 359 ITR 673 (Mad). 4.2.7 The learned A.R. of the assessee further contended that without prejudice to the above submissions, no revision is permissible under section 263 of the Act, if the AO adopts one of the possible methods/ courses of action/conclusions permissible in law. The mere fact that the CIT is not in agreement with the view taken/conclusion reached by the AO, which is permissible in law, would not render the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Even otherwise, where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot render the order of assessment erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In support of this proportion reliance was, inter alia, placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) (iv) Grasim Industry Ltd. (2010) 221 ITR 92 (Bom) 4.2.8 The learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that it is well settled that if any enquiry is conducted by the AO in assessment proceedings, it will not give jurisdiction to the CIT to pass revisionary orders merely because he has a different view or opinion in the matter. He has to demonstrate that a patent error has been committed in assessment proceedings resulting in prejudice to Revenue, otherwise it will tantamount to giving the AO a second innings to re-examine and re-adjudicate concluded issues. The learned A.R. submits that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) has observed that where it is found that the AO had examined and considered the relevant issue and material in the course of assessment proceedings, as has been evidently done by the AO in the case on hand, it would not be open to the CIT to invoke revisionary powers just to re-examine issues on the ground that the AO had not inquired into the matter properly. 4.2.9 The learned A.R. submitted that identical issue of revision under section 263 of the Act was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in one of the assessee’s group companies, i.e. M/s. Future Corporate Resources Ltd. regarding disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D in the very same assessment year and the Coordinate Bench in its order in for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 26.10.2016 held that the order under section 263 of the Act was unsustainable and was set aside as the learned CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction while invoking the provisions under section 263 of the Act. 4.3.1 Per contra, the learned D.R. submitted that the learned Principal CIT has exercised his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act correctly and in accordance with law. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act and Explanation 2 thereof, the CIT was empowered Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and the order can be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue if in the opinion of the CIT, the order has been passed without making inquiries or verifications which should have been made or that in the order the AO has allowed any relief without inquiring into the claim. It was contended that Explanation 2 is clarificatory in nature and can be applied retrospectively. It was prayed that the impugned order of the learned Principal CIT be upheld. 4.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. The mandate of the provisions of section 263 of the Act is that the CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the AO is erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, he may then, after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant; including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. It is trite law that the powers under section 263 of the Act can be exercised by the CIT only on satisfaction of the twin condition, viz., the assessment order should be (i) erroneous and (ii) prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It is, therefore, amply clear that the CIT cannot exercise the revisionary power under section 263 of the Act unless he is able to establish that the order of the AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If, however, there are two possible views on an issue and the AO has taken one of the possible views, then there is no occasion for the CIT to exercise the powers of revision. Further, the revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised by the CIT for directing a full inquiry to find out if the view taken by the AO is erroneous, when a view has already been taken in the matter after an inquiry has been undertaken. The power of revision can be exercises only when no inquiry, as required under law, is carried out. However, even in case of inadequate inquiry by the AO, the order of the AO cannot be reviewed.

Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. 4.4.2 We have carefully perused the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.02.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12. On perusal thereof, we find that the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w rule 8D of the Rules has certainly been the subject matter of inquiry and was taken up in detail by the AO in assessment proceedings as can be seen at paras 4 to 4.3 of the order. In fact, it appears to us that the scrutiny proceedings was entirely devoted to the consideration of the issue of the disallowance to be made under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules. We find that details called for by the AO, while inquiring into this issue, were filed by the assessee; inquiries and examination thereof were made by the AO and much of this finds mention at paras 4 to 4.3 of the order of assessment that is sought to be revised. After noting the facts of the case, the details called for, submissions of the assessee and an examination and consideration thereof, the AO proceeded to render his decision for making disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules as under at paras 4.1 and 4.3 thereof: - “4.1 On perusal of the Balance Sheet it was noticed that the assessee was holding investments worth of Rs.12,20,02,042/- and Rs.86,97,99,026/ at the beginning and end of the year respectively, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income. The assessee ought to have made disallowance of expenditure in relation to the income which does not or shall not form part of total income as required u/s. 14A in accordance with the provision of Rule 8D. 4.2 In the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of its investments and to show cause as to why disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act should not be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D. In response, the assessee stated that it has not incurred any interest cost for the purpose of making investment and company has sufficient own fund for making investment. Your honours kindly observe that the same contention has been accepted during the Assessment Year 2010-11 also. We would also like to inform you that such investment has been made in subsidiary company and such is for the purpose of business and strategic investment; hence disallowance u/s 14A is not applicable. 4.3 The contentions of the assessee have been considered and it is accepted that assessee has sufficient own fund for making investment; hence disallowance of interest not made. But as per rule 8(D)(iii) disallowance of 0.5% of average value of investment is hereby disallowed, which comes to Rs.24,79,503/-. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.24,79,503 is hereby disallowed u/s 14A and the same is added Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. to total income as well as book profit of the company. Penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation I & 4 to Sec.274 is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.4.3 A perusal of paras 4.2 and 4.3 of the order of assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 (extracted supra) clearly establishes that after consideration of the assessee’s explanations the AO has not accepted the assessee’s contention that no disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules is called for. The AO observes that from the details filed and explanations put forth by the assessee, that the assessee had not incurred interest cost on investments as it had sufficient own funds for making the investments, including strategic investments made in its group/subsidiary concerns for the purposes of its business and therefore proceeded to hold that no disallowance on account of interest is to be considered for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules as the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the investments made. In our view, this establishes beyond doubt that the AO, in fact, called for, examined and verified the details/submissions filed by the assessee, before holding that no disallowance is to be made from out of interest, ostensibly under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, as the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the investments made including what has been strategically invested in its associate/subsidiary concerns for the purposes of the assessee’s business. We also find that after holding so, the AO proceeded to make a disallowance of `24,79,503/- under section 14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules as administrative costs incurred for maintaining the investments and earning exempt income @0.5% of the average value of opening investment and closing investment. 4.4.4 An important aspect that we observe in the case on hand, is that the learned CIT has not disputed the basic fact that the assessee had not incurred cost on investment as it had sufficient own funds to cover the investments made; including those strategic investments in group concerns, which were made for the purpose and in the course of the assessee’s business. It is also seen that the learned CIT(A) has not disputed, controverted or found any discrepancy in the submissions, explanations and factual details brought on record by the assessee, which Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. have been considered, examined and verified by the AO. We find that in revisonary proceedings, the learned CIT, apart from the facts already on record, has not found any fresh or different facts in coming to his view. The learned CIT has merely taken a different view on the same set of facts. In our considered view, if the actions/finding of the AO are evaluated in the factual matrix as laid out above and the settled legal position, it is clear that there is no infirmity in the order of the AO as it was in accordance with law in the given facts and circumstances of the case, and the finding of the AO was rendered after due application of mind on the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D. 4.4.5 For the purpose of revision under section 263 of the Act, what is relevant is to decide whether the view adopted by the AO in the order of assessment, while considering the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules, was a possible view, notwithstanding the fact that the learned CIT entertains a different view/opinion on the same set of facts. In the case on hand, as spelt out earlier in this order, and which we again reiterate, that the learned CIT has not controverted the factual aspects of the AO’s finding that no disallowance of interest on loans debited by the assessee is called for thereon (ostensibly under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules) since almost the entire investment was made strategically in group concerns for the purposes of the assessee’s business, but proceeded beyond the show cause notice he issued to the assessee by directing inquiry to be carried out under section 57(ii) of the Act also alongwith the disallowance to be made under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. We also find that the learned CIT/learned D.R. for Revenue have also not controverted the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee in support of its various contentions, on jurisdiction as well as on merits. In this factual and legal matrix of the case as laid out above, we are of the opinion that, since it is clear to us that inquiry in respect of the requirement of disallowance of interest under section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Rules was conducted by the AO in the assessment proceedings, as is evident from the order of assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, and he took a possible view that no disallowance was called for on interest, ostensibly in respect of rule