ACIT, CHENNAI V. Anand Transport, CHENNAI

ITA 1190/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5963 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P PALANIAP
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1190/MDS/2017 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S ANAND TRANSPORT, NO.1, 9 TH STREET, DR. RADHAKRISHNA SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AAAFA 1037 D (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SP. PALANIAPPAN, ACA 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2017 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -2, CHENNA I, DATED 09.02.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.1190/MDS/17 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A S UM OF ` 15,580/-. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS ) FOUND THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY EXEMPTED INCOME. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT DOES NOT S AY THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T EARNED ANY EXEMPTED INCOME. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPTED INCOME OR NOT, DISALLOWANCE UNDER S ECTION 14A OF THE ACT NEEDS TO BE MADE SINCE IT IS MANDATORY. TH EREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SP. PALANIAPPAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPTED INCOME, THEREFORE, THE CIT( APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COUR T IN CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT IN ITA 749/2014 DATED 02.09.2015, DELET ED THE ADDITION 3 I.T.A. NO.1190/MDS/17 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. REPRESENTAT IVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN REDINGTON ( INDIA) LTD. V. ADDL. CIT (2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 257 ALSO HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT ED INCOME. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. (SU PRA) HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND FOUND THAT WHEN TH ERE WAS NO EXEMPTED INCOME, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE O F EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN RE DINGTON (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO POOJA EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,23,105/-. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY IN THE BU SINESS OF LOGISTICS AND STEVEDORING. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 1,23,105/- BEING POOJA EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER 4 I.T.A. NO.1190/MDS/17 DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE POOJA EXPENSES ARE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT PERFORMING POOJA IS DEP ENDING UPON THE FAITH OF INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSMAN. IRRESPECTIVE OF R ELIGION, EVERYONE IS PERFORMING POOJA FOR THEIR OWN WELL-BEING AND WELL- BEING OF THE BUSINESS CONCERN. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE PERF ORMS POOJA WITH AN INTENTION TO EARN PROFIT IN ITS BUSINESS AC TIVITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE BUSINESSMAN TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT FOR THE BUSINESS. IT IS FOR THE BUSINESSMAN TO DECIDE WHETHER HE HAS TO DO POOJA FOR THE WELL-BEIN G OF THE BUSINESS CONCERN. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE POOJA EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE NECESS ARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND WELL-BEING OF BUSINESS CONC ERN AND ITS EMPLOYEES, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 5 I.T.A. NO.1190/MDS/17 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 13 TH OCTOBER, 2017. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.