DCIT, Circle - 11(1), , Kolkata V. M/s. Khaitan (India) Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 2090/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1726 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHEY SHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND AGARWAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.2090/KOL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA APPELLANT VS M/S. KHAITAN (INDIA) LTD. RESPONDENT [PAN:AABCK 2326 B] FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI RADHEY SHYAM, CIT, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 02.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.06.2019 ORDER PER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-4, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE RULES. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 20.11.2017 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AND SUBMITTED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. HE REFERRED TO I.T.A NO.2090/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. KHAITAN (INDIA) LTD. . 2 PARA NO.6.4 AND ARGUED THAT CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR FURTHER REFERRED TO RELEVANT PORTION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS AT PAGE NO.17 AT PARA NO.10. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 5. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERSUED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. THIS TRIBUNAL FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISIONS WHILE ADJUDICATING SIMILAR ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHICH IS AT PAGE 12, THE RELEVANT PORTION AT PARA NO.11.2. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING, THE RELEVANT PORTION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: PARA 10. THE FINDINGS/CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A): I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SEGMENT WISE ACCOUNTS, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, COPIES OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 20/12/2017 AND THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-4, KOLKATA. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(III), THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN THOUGH ALL THE EXPENSES RELATATBLE TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL EXEMPT INCOME HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION YET THERE WOULD BE A DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE RULE 8D(2)(III). THE APPELLANTS CLAIM HAS BEEN THAT SINCE ALL THE RELATABLE EXPENSES HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION AND NO EXPENSE RELATABLE TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN RELATION TO OTHER BUSINESSES OF THE APPELLANT, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE IN RELATION TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RULE 8D(2)(III). ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS AS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, I HAVE DECIDED THE SAME VIDE MY ORDER DATED 22/02/2018 UNDER APPEAL NO.1563/CIT(A)-4/2014-15 WHEREIN I HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 20/12/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AND ALSO CIT(A)-4, KOLKATA IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30/12/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, I ALSO HOLD THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(2)(III) IN RELATION TO THE APPELLANTS AGRICULTURAL INCOME SINCE ALL THE RELATABLE EXPENSES HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN MAKING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION AND NO PART OF SUCH EXPENSES WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO ITS OTHER BUSINESSES. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE A.O FOR DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.21,15,721 MADE BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(III) IN RELATION TO THE APPELLANTS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. I.T.A NO.2090/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. KHAITAN (INDIA) LTD. . 3 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND IT IS JUSTIFIED. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.06.2019. SD/- SD/- [DR. A. L. SAINI] [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14.06.2019 PLACE : KOLKATA RS, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S KHAITAN (INDIA) LTD., 46C, J.L. NEHRU ROAD, EVEREST HOUSE, 18 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA 700 071. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA