Kirloskar Systems Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 140/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8664 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU J
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.140 & 141/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2011-12 KIRLOSKAR SYSTEMS LTD., EMBASSY STAR, NO.8, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 002. PAN: AABCK 1631K VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. BIJU, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)-3 DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING ON 05.12.20 16, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT N OTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED AD AND AD CARD IS PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE DESPITE SERVICE OF VARIOUS NOTICE S OF HEARING, NONE ITA NOS.140 & 141/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE NO OPTI ON BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. IN THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ON COMMON GROUNDS AND FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.140/BANG/2016 AS FOLLOWS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTS OF THE COMPANY THAT INVOK ING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT WARRAN TED. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN R E-COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TA X ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES CON SIDERED FOR CALCULATING FURTHER DISALLOWANCES UNDER SECTION 14A WERE ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO EARNI NG ANY EXEMPT INCOME. YOUR APPELLANT SEEKS LEAVE TO ADD TO, TO AMEND ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS AS AND WHEN CONSIDERED NECESSARY/ AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPE ALS) IN THE LIGHT OF REVENUE'S CONTENTIONS AND WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPE ALS) HAS PROPERLY ITA NOS.140 & 141/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF LAW AND SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN, WE CONFIRM HI S ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 06 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 06 TH JANUARY, 2017. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.