Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: MS. DIVA SINGH & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
PER DIVA SINGH,JM
These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.07.2017 of ld. CIT(Appeals)-1 Ludhiana pertaining to 2013-14 assessment years on the following respective grounds : ITA 1376/CHD/2017 : That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold disallowance made by the Ld, Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs. 73,61,265/- on account of interest on investments. ITA 1433/CHD/2017 : 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A was justified in law in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962? 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off.
ITA 1376 & 1433/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page 2 of 3
The ld. AR addressing the grounds raised by the parties submitted that the points at issues were fully covered in favour of the assessee. Inviting attention to the assessee's ground, it was submitted that the facts have been discussed by the CIT(A) at page 13 para 11 wherein the CIT(A) relying upon the proceedings available in assessee's own case in 2011-12 assessment year sustained the addition made by the AO. For ready reference, para 13 of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder :
“The submissions of the appellant have been considered. In the appellant's case for A.Y.2011-12, similar addition was confirmed vide order dated 28/12/2015 in Appeal No.. 06/IT/CIT (A)-l/Ldh/2014-15. Following the same precedence, the disallowance of Rs. 73,61,265/-is upheld. It is ordered accordingly. The ground of appeal pertaining to this addition is, thus, dismissed.”
Inviting attention to the copy of the order of the ITAT available in assessee's own case wherein the ITAT vide its order dated 29.11.2017 considering the identical issue allowed relief to the assessee Accordingly, it was his submission that the issue is covered in assessee's favour. 3.1 The ld. CIT-DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the issue was considered by the CIT(A) relying upon the position taken in 2011-12 assessment year on same set of facts and circumstances. The said case had come up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench and considering the facts and position of law thereon, addition was directed to be deleted. In the absence of any infirmity either on facts or change in position of law, we find no good reason to vary. Respectfully following the order of the ITAT, ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is allowed. Specific reasoning taken by the ITAT which is being followed in the present proceedings is reproduced in para 10 of the said order. 5. Addressing the sole issue raised by the Revenue in the present proceedings. The ld. AR submitted that in the facts of the present case, the assessee has not earned any exempt income which fact has been taken note of by the AO as well as by the CIT(A). Accordingly, relying upon the position of law, as has been consistently considered by various Courts and followed by the ITAT also, in the facts as they stand, it was his submission that the
ITA 1376 & 1433/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page 3 of 3
relief granted by the CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Reliance was placed upon the order dated 22.04.2016 in ITA 545/CHD/2015 and ITA 428/CHD/2015 in the cross appeals in the case of M/s Vardhman Chemtech Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 The ld. CIT-DR relies upon the assessment order. No contrary decision or fact was brought to our notice. 5.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where admittedly there is no exempt income, position of law as considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lakhani Marketing in ITA 970/2008 and decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., we find that the departmental appeal cannot survive. Accordingly, upholding the conclusion arrived at for the reasons set out herein above, departmental appeal is dismissed and assessee's appeal is allowed. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. 6. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.02. 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
‘Poonam’ Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR Asstt. Registrar ITAT,Chandigarh.