OM PRAKASH KHAITAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
आदेश /O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M.
This appeal by the Assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-38, New Delhi dated 26.03.2019 pertaining to AY 2015-16.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D amounting
to Rs.25,59,533/-.
Briefly stated the facts are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has earned 1
I.T.A.No.3714/Del/2019
exempt income. Assessee was asked to show-cause why disallowance
should not be made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. In its reply, the assessee
submitted that it has not incurred any direct or indirect expenditure in
connection with investments made in securities and mutual funds from
where it iha earned exempt income. It was explained that assessee has
paid portfolio management charges amounting to Rs.66,338/- and STT at
Rs.23,412/-. It was pointed out that Rs.89,750/- has been suo moto
added back by the assessee while computing its return of income.
Therefore, no further disallowance is to be made. This submission of the
assessee was dismissed by the AO who proceeded to compute the
disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D at Rs.25,59,533/-. Assessee
carried the matter before CIT(A) but without any success.
Before us the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the
facts are similar to the facts of AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, where the issue
has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by
the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
Per contra, the DR strongly supporting the assessment order stated
that the facts are clearly distinguishable and read the operative part of
the assessment order.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the
authorities below. At the very outset, we have to state that the facts of
the year under consideration are no different than the facts considered in
I.T.A.No.3714/Del/2019
AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, wherein by a separate order of even date in ITA
No.4701/Del/2018 and 4702/Del/2018. We have decided this issue in
favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by following the decision
of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi. For our detailed
discussion therein, we direct the AO to delete the addition of
Rs.25,59,533/-.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/04/2023
Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (N.K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 28.04.2023 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi
