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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench
These assessee’s five appeals ITA.Nos.572 to 576/Coch/2023 arise against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as under : - DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 572/Coch/2023 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 05.06.2023 24/1053552929(1) 2 573/Coch/2023 2010-11 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 05.06.2023 24/1053552740(1) to 576/Coch/2023 Aspinwall and Company Ltd. 3 574/Coch/2023 2013-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 05.06.2023 24/1053553697(1) 4 2014-15 575/Coch/2023 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 05.06.2023 24/1053309179(1) 5 576/Coch/2023 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 05.06.2023 24/1053554055(1)
Heard both parties in detail. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s former substantive ground in AYs 2010-11 & 2017-18 and the solitary grievance in AYs 2011-12, 2013- 14 and 2014-15 is that of the correctness of both the lower authorities action invoking section 14A r.w. rule 8D disallowance(s) regarding its exempt income involving varying sums; as the case may be.
Learned counsel submits very fairly that the assessee has indeed derived exempt income(s) in all these assessment years. He confines his challenge to the impugned disallowance only on the ground that so far as proportionate expenditure and administrative head(s) are concerned, the assessee was having sufficient interest free funs and the lower authorities herein ought to have only considered the exempt income yielding investments respectively.
Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned Assessing Officer to finalise his consequential computation afresh, inter alia considering the interest bearing funds utilised in making the investments which have actually yielded exempt income in the relevant previous years subject to a rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. The assessee’s instant former substantive ground in assessment years 2010-2011 and 2017-2018 is accepted for statistical to 576/Coch/2023 Aspinwall and Company Ltd. purposes. It’s three appeals 573, 576 & 572/Coch/2023 are accepted for statistical purposes since raising the instant sole issue (supra).
This leaves us with the assessee’s latter identical substantial ground in AYs 2010-11 and 2017-18 seeking to delete section 41 (1) cessation of liability addition; involving varying sum(s). Learned D.R. submits that it was the duty of the assessee only to plead and prove all the relevant facts. The fact however remains that we do not find any actual cessation in the assessee’s books which forms a pre-condition for the impugned addition u/s.41(1) as per Cit vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., [1999] 236 ITR 518 (SC) that there is no concept of invoking section 41(1) over in any case qua outstanding dues as the same has to be based only in an instance of actual cessation. We thus accept the assessee’s instant latter substantive ground in these twin assessment years in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
To sum up, assessee’s appeal & 576/Coch/2023 are partly allowed and the remaining three appeals 574 & 575/Coch/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.