K.P.Ramasamy, Coimbatore V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1532/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57817 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R B NAIKC I T
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENN AI BEFORE SHRI ABARAHAM P.GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.1532/MDS./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 SHRI K.P.RAMASAMY, NO.5,A.K.S.NAGAR, THADAGAM ROAD, COIMBATORE 641 001. VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE (3), COIMBATORE. PAN AAFCA 3203 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.B.NAIK,C.I.T. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.01.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01 .12 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I, COIMBATORE IN A PPEAL NO.159/10-11 DATED 29.06.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. PAGE OF 4 ITA.1532 /MDS/11 2 2. SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI R.B. NAIK, C.I.T. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. THAT THE ONLY IS SUE IN THIS APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING RUL E-8D READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR E ARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO DIS ALLOWANCE U/S.14A WAS CALLED FOR. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LEO C YCLES. IN REPLY, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A WAS APPLICABLE IN SO FAR AS ASSESSEE HAD DIVIDEND INCOM E, WHICH DID NOT FORM A PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE A CT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG . CO. PAGE OF 4 ITA.1532 /MDS/11 3 LTD., IN 328 ITR 81 (BOM.). ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSEE D OES HAVE DIVIDEND INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED 20 08-09 WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A IS APPLICABLE. IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A IS RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. REFERRED T O SUPRA. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH JANUARY, 2012. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE PAGE OF 4 ITA.1532 /MDS/11 4