RLF Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

ITA 1523/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5494 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRTI SANKRATYAYAN SENIOR
• Keywords: Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 250; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.1523/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S. RLF LIMITED, VS. ITO, WARD 20 (3), D 41, NEW DELHI SOUTH EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. PART II, NEW DELHI 110 049. (PAN : AAACR0008E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. KIRTI SANKRATYAYAN, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.09.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 22.09.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. RLF LIMITED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO S ET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS)-7, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 GRA NTING PART ITA NO.1523/DEL./2018 2 RELIEF OUT OF DISALLOWANCES MADE U/S 14A OF I.T. AC T READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE COMPANY IS INTO MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF EMBROIDED FABRICS. DURING SCRUTINY P ROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED INVESTMENT IN SHARES , INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. DECL INING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COMP UTATION OF INCOME IT HAD ADDED RS.25,53,328/- UNDER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), WHEREAS NO DIS ALLOWANCES CALLED FOR IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF HOLCIM INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO.486/3024 & ITA NO.299/2014 , THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 0,82,567/- OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE SUO MOTU DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.25,53,238/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.15,29,329/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL U/S 250( 6) OF THE ACT. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ITA NO.1523/DEL./2018 3 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. D R AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE/APPELLANT TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE D OCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 6. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) GOES TO PROVE THAT RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LD.CIT (APPEALS)-16 VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2016 AND APPEAL EFFECT HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN, OPERATIVE PART OF THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER :- 3.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. AR. THE CIT (APPEALS) -16 HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER NO.143/2 016-17 (OLD APPEAL NO.228/2015-16) DATED 06.12.2016 AND APPEAL EFFECT ALREADY ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES MADE BY THE AO HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS RULED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 7. EVEN ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BY RA ISING VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS GROUND FROM WHICH IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISCERN AS TO WHAT RELIEF IS BEING SOUGHT. ITA NO.1523/DEL./2018 4 8. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, FINDIN G NO ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD. CIT(A), PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-27, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.