HINDUSTAN PORTS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO -1(1_ (4) `, MUMBAI

ITA 1567/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0890 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SONI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Hindustan Ports Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Darabshaw House, Narottam Morarji Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. बिधम/ Vs. ITO-1(1)(4) Room No.531A, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCC2549Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai in National Faceless Appeal [NFAC] dated 22.06.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the assessee had received exempt income only to the tune of Rs.6,23,369/- whereas the AO has erroneously taken this exempt income as Rs.36,86,985/-, which needs to be rectified. Moreover, according to the assessee, the suo-moto disallowance made by assessee u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the Act) was to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. However the main grievance of the assessee is that the AO has made the disallowance at Rs.36,86,985/- without recording satisfaction as required u/s 14A of the Act [refer decision of Assessee by: Shri Kirit Kamdar/ Shri Sunil Hingorani Revenue by: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. AR) ITA No.1567/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Hindustan Port Pvt. Ltd. 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 402 ITR 640 (SC)]. According to the Ld. AR the lower authorities did not give proper opportunity to the assessee to show that the expenditure incurred for receiving the exempt income of Rs.6,23,369/- was only to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, he prayed that the matter may be remanded back to either the Ld. CIT(A) or the AO. 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the remand. According to him, the assessee ought to have submitted all the necessary details before the AO/CIT(A) and a second innings should not be allowed to the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the lower authorities to have made the disallowance u/s 14A without following the condition prescribed in Section 14A of the Act before making the impugned disallowance. According to the assessee it has received exempt income only to the tune of Rs.6,23,369/- whereas the disallowance has been made to the tune of Rs.36,86,985/- [erroneously noted by AO exempt income as Rs.36,86,985/- whereas it is only Rs 6,23,369] which according to him is per-se fallacious in view of the various judicial precedence on the subject. According to the assessee, the expenditure incurred for receipt of exempt income was only to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the authorities below, the assessee could not demonstrate properly before the authorities the facts pertaining on this ITA No.1567/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Hindustan Port Pvt. Ltd. 3 issue [ i.e, the expenditure incurred for receipt of exempt income was only to the tune of Rs.20,000/-]. We after going through the records, is of the opinion that assessee didn’t get proper opportunity during assessment proceedings. In such a scenario, we relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company Vs. CIT (249 ITR 216) (SC), are inclined to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) and direct him to decide the issue in accordance to the law after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. And the assessee is directed to file all documents/submissions to substantiate its stand on this issue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30/05/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (ABY T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 30/05/2022 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai