DCIT, CHENNAI V. TAFE Motors & Tractors Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2107/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4004 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . ! ' , # $% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2107 & 2108/MDS/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), NEW BLOCK, 4 TH FLOOR, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. V. M/S.TAFE MOTORS & TRACTORS LIMITED, NO.35, POTTIPATTI PLAZA, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. PAN: AACCT 2459 B ( &' /APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT ()&'*+ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADV OCATE *,# /DATE OF HEARING : 18.10.2016 -./ *,# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 17.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2 I.T.A. NOS.2107 & 2108/ MDS/2016 2012-13. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISAL LOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A), BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2) ( III) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY INCLUDED THE INVESTME NT YIELDED TAXABLE INCOME. THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION AND RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWAN CE. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RU LE 8D(2)(II), THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY AN ORDER DATED 23.09.2016 IN ITA NOS.1402, 1403 & 1404/MDS/2016. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPR ESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE BY STRICTLY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2). THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE INVESTMENT WHICH RESULTED TAXABLE INCOME. 3. WE HEARD SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AG AINST THE VERY SAME 3 I.T.A. NOS.2107 & 2108/ MDS/2016 ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ITA NOS.1402, 1403 & 1404/MDS/20 16. THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 23.09.2016 EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY COMPUTED THE EXPENDIT URE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II). REFERRING TO RULE 8D(2)(III), 0.5% OF TH E AVERAGE INVESTMENT WHICH RESULTED EXEMPTED INCOME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUD E THE INVESTMENT WHICH DOES NOT YIELDED TAXABLE INCOME. THIS DIRECTI ON OF THE CIT(A) IS STRICTLY AS PROVIDED IN RULE 8D (2)(III). THEREFORE , THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ! ' ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED, THE 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2016. SP. 4 I.T.A. NOS.2107 & 2108/ MDS/2016 * (,!1 21/, /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. 3, ( )/CIT(A) 4. 3, /CIT, 5. 14 (, /DR 6. 5 6 /GF.