Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
Date of Hearing 14.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2016 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 29.10.2015 of CIT(A)-19, New Delhi pertaining to 2012 – 13 assessment year.
An adjournment has been moved on behalf of the Revenue stating that the Ld. Sr. DR is on leave. On going through the same, it is seen that apart from carrying some indecipherable initial it neither names the person who has moved it nor does it reflect the designation of the person petitioning for time. No one was present in support of the petition moved. The moving of the petition in such a casual way is not appropriate. Considering the material available on record, it was considered appropriate to proceed with the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the Revenue respondent on merit after rejecting the petition of the Revenue. The Ld.AR inviting attention to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 19.06.2015 in pertaining to 2009-10 AY in the case of Regent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
I.T.A .No.-32/Del/2016 vs. DCIT submitted that the point at issue is fully covered in assessee’s favour by the said order. Relying on the said decision it was submitted that the ITAT had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del.) which is relied upon in the present proceedings also. Inviting attention to the facts on record as found addressed in Page 1 para 3 of the assessment order which are reiterated in para 3 of the order under challenge it was his submission that the assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.5,300/-, the said income was not claimed as an exempt income while computing the taxable income. The assessee was put to notice to explain why provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be invoked. In response thereto, it was submitted the assessee company offered Rs.31,367/- as disallowance. The said submission was not accepted by Assessing Officer who proceeded to make an addition of Rs.7,00,923/-by way of a disallowance. In appeal the assessee relied upon various decisions including the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Private Limited [2014] 90 CCH 081 Del-HC and CIT vs Hero cycles 323 ITR 518 (P & H) amongst others. Not convinced with the explanation the addition was upheld. In the said background the Ld. AR inviting attention to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench and the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Joint Investments Private Ltd (cited supra) submitted that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. In the absence of any representation on the part of the Revenue and finding the facts available on record supporting the claim of the assessee, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to limit the disallowance to Rs.5,300/- i.e. the ex-exempt income.
I.T.A .No.-32/Del/2016
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 06 of May, 2016.