DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana V. M/s Trident Limited, Ludhiana

ITA 1433/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5149 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH ABROL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1376/CHD/2 017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S TRIDENT LIMITED, VS THE ACIT, E-212, KITCHLU NAGAR, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AABCA4139J & ITA NO. 1433/CHD/2 017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THE ACIT, VS M/S TRIDENT LIMITED, CIRCLE-1, E-212, KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AABCA4139J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ASHISH ABROL, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE R EVENUE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2017 O F 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 MA DE BY THE LD, ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 36(1)(III) OF RS. 73,61,265/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T ON INVESTMENTS. ITA 1433/CHD/2017 : 1. WHETHER UPON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE 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 T HAT 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 2. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PA RTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE POINTS AT ISSUES WERE FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSEE'S GROUND, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 13 PARA 11 W HEREIN 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 CONSIDE RED. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR A.Y.2011-12, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS CONFIRME D 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 U PHELD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO THI S ADDITION IS, THUS, DISMISSED. 3. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IT AT AVAILABLE IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE WHEREIN THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DA TED 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 CONSIDERAT ION BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND POSITION O F LAW THEREON, ADDITION WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY 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 T HE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME WHICH FACT H AS BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, RELY ING UPON THE POSITION OF LAW, AS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONSIDERED BY VARIOUS CO URTS AND FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT ALSO, IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, IT WAS HIS S UBMISSION 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. RELIANC E 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 CIRCUMSTAN CES 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 LA KHANI MARKETING IN ITA 970/2008 AND DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD., WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL CANN OT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLDING THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT FOR THE RE ASONS SET OUT HEREIN ABOVE, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSE E'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 AN D APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.02. 2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SI NGH) 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.