, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.2082 & 2083/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 AND 2010-11 M/S AKSHAYA PVT. LTD G SQUARE, 46, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR) KANDANCHAVADI CHENNAI 600 096 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAFCA 1708 D] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 12 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 - 01 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS)-1, CHENNAI, DATED 14.8.2015, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 -09 AND 2010-11. 2. SHRI S SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.2082 & 2083/15 :- 2 -: 3. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS INV ESTED IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM VIZ. M/S AUTOMOTIVE SHEET META L COMPONENTS. THE INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS EXEMPTED FR OM TAXATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN THOUGH THE INVES TMENT WAS MADE, NO INCOME WAS EARNED, THEREFORE, THE INCOME FROM TH E PARTNERSHIP FIRM DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CAS E. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS M BASKARAN, [2015] 152 ITD 844. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT RULE 8D CAME INTO OP ERATION WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THEREFORE, IT IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE, A DMITTEDLY, MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM FOR EARNING EXEM PTED INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALL OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER ANY EXEMPTED INCOME FORMED PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, THE LD. DR CLARIFIED THAT THE DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NOS.2082 & 2083/15 :- 3 -: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT AND R ULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. RULE 8D CLEARLY SAYS THAT EXPEND ITURE HAS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER RULE 8D IN RELATION OF INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO INCOME WAS FORMED PART OF T HE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEV ER, THE DETAILS OF INCOME ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSU E IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TH IS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M BASKARAN (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAM E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JANUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 07 TH JANUARY,2016 RD ITA NOS.2082 & 2083/15 :- 4 -: &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF