Mira Textiles & Industries (India) Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 225/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4280 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S VIDYA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Assessment record
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.225/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. MIRA TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES (I) LTD, FLAT F2, UPPER CREST APARTMENTS, NO.11, SCHOOL STREET, KOYAMBEDU, CHENNAI [PAN AAACM 4365R] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 4(3) CHENNAI. ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. VIDYA, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASHISH TRIPATHI, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 20-06-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-06-2017 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED ON A DISALL OWANCE OF @20,52,440/- U/S.14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO. 225/MDS/2017. :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD NOT DERIVED ANY EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE R ELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR NOR CLAIMED ANY INCOME AS EXEMPT. ACCORDING TO HER, BY VIRTUE OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD (2017) 80 TAXMANN.COM 221 NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE WHEN THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE SUCH SUBMISSION MADE A D ISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE Q UESTION WHETHER A DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT EVEN W HEN THERE IS NO CLAIM FOR EXEMPT INCOME, HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT PART OF TH E JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 11. FURTHERMORE, WE MAY NOTE THAT A SIMILAR ARGUM ENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE ADVANCED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MATTER CONCERNING, M/S.REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED VS. THE A DDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHICH WAS, SUBJECT MATT ER OF T.C.A.NO.520 OF 2016. ITA NO. 225/MDS/2017. :- 3 -: 11.1. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS COURT, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2016, REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE ADVANCED IN THAT BEHALF. 11.2. AS A MATTER OF FACT, A PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMEN T WOULD SHOW THAT THE REVENUE HAD SOUGHT TO ARGUE THAT BECA USE EXEMPT INCOME COULD BE EARNED IN FUTURE YEARS, THER EFORE, RECOURSE COULD BE TAKEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT, TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORDS T HE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE WAS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT W HETHER OR NOT INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A COULD BE DISALLOWED A GAINST ANTICIPATED INCOME. 11.3. PERTINENTLY, THE DIVISION BENCH IN M/S.REDING TON (INDIA) LIMITED CASE HAS REPELLED THIS PRECISE ARGUMENT. 12. THE DIVISION BENCH, IN OUR VIEW, QUIET CORRECTL Y HELD THAT, THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, IN TERMS OF SECTIO N 5 OF THE ACT, IS MADE QUA REAL INCOME AND NOT, VIS-A-VIS, NO TIONAL INCOME. 12.1. THE DIVISION BENCH WENT ON TO HOLD THAT SECTI ON 4 OF THE ACT BRINGS TO TAX, THAT INCOME, WHICH IS RELATA BLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ISSUE. THE DIVISION BENCH, THUS , HELD THAT WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED IN THE PREVIO US YEAR, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ISSUE, PROVISION S OF SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT, READ WITH RULE 8 D COULD N OT BE INVOKED. 12.2. WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE DIVISION BENCH ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCULAR, ISSU ED BY THE BOARD. 12.3. THE REASONING OF THE DIVISION BENCH IS CONTAI NED IN THE FOLLOWING PART OF THE JUDGMENT: 4.THE ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ISSUE. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS A FINDING OF FACT TO TH AT EFFECT. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED THUS LIES WITHIN T HE SHORT COMPASS OF WHETHER A DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF S.14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES CAN BE CONTEMPLATED EVEN IN A SITUATION WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. ITA NO. 225/MDS/2017. :- 4 -: 7.PER CONTRA, SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE MARGINAL NOTES OF S.14 A POINTING OUT THAT THE PROVISION WOULD APPLY NOT ONLY WHERE EXEMPTED INCOME IS 'INCLUDED' IN THE TOTAL INCOME, BUT ALSO WHERE EXEMPT INCOME IS 'INCLUDABLE' IN TOTAL INCOME. 8.HE RELIED UPON A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IN CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014 DATE D 11.2.2014 TO THE EFFECT THAT S.14A WAS INTENDED TO COVER EVEN THOSE SITUATIONS WHETHER THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPT INCOME BEING EARNED IN FUTURE . THE CIRCULAR, AT PARAGRAPH 4, STATES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR EXEMPT INCOME TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF A PARTICULAR YEAR FOR THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE TRIGGERED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL, THE PROVISIONS OF S.14A ARE MADE APPLICABLE, IN TERMS OF SUB SECTION (1) THEREOF TO INCOME 'UNDER THE ACT' AND NOT 'OF THE YEAR' AND A DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A R.W.RULE 8D CAN THUS BE EFFECTED EVEN IN A SITUATION WHERE A TA X PAYER HAS NOT EARNED ANY TAXABLE INCOME IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. 9.WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WERE INSERTED AS A RESPONSE TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED (1971) (82 ITR 452) AND RAJASTHAN STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ((2002) 242 ITR 450) IN TERMS OF WHICH, EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE CARRYING ON A COMPOSITE BUSINESS GIVING RISE TO BOTH TAXABLE AS WELL AS NON-TAXABLE INCOME, WAS ALLOWABLE IN ENTIRETY WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT. I T WAS THUS THAT S.14A WAS INSERTED PROVIDING THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF INCOME EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD (2010) 326 ITR 1 '.... THE MANDATE OF S.14A IS CLEAR. IT DESIRES TO CURB THE PRACTICE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AGAINST TAXABLE INCOME AND AT THE SAME TIME AVAIL OF THE ITA NO. 225/MDS/2017. :- 5 -: TAX INCENTIVE BY WAY OF AN EXEMPTION OF EXEMPT INCOME WITHOUT MAKING ANY APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME.' 10.THE PROVISION THIS IS CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE EARNING OF ACTUAL INCOME AND NOT NOTIONAL OR ANTICIPATED INCOME. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT S.14A WOULD BE ATTRACTED EVEN TO EXEMPT INCOME 'INCLUDABLE' IN TOTAL INCOME WOULD ENTAIL THE ASSESSMENT OF NOTIONAL INCOME, ASSUMED TO BE EXEMPT IN THE FUTURE, IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN TERMS OF S.5 OF THE ACT IS ON REAL INCOME AND THERE IS NO SANCTION IN LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ADMITTEDLY NOTIONAL INCOME, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF EFFECTING A DISALLOWANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 11.THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D IS BY WAY OF A DETERMINATION INVOLVING DIRECT AS WELL AS INDIRECT ATTRIBUTION. THUS, ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE WOULD RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD OF COMPUTATION ON NOTIONAL AND ASSUMED INCOME. WE BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE CARRYING THE ARTIFICE TOO FAR.(EMPHASIS IS OURS) 13.MR.SENTHIL KUMAR, SEEKS TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDGM ENT IN M/S.REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED CASE BASED ON THE FAC T THAT RULE 8D HAD NOT KICKED-IN BY AY 2007-08, WHICH WAS THE A Y BEING CONSIDERED IN THE SAID CASE. 14.ACCORDING TO US, THIS WAS NOT THE ARGUMENT, PUT FORTH, BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE REVEN UE RELIED HEAVILY ON RULE 8D. 14.1.MR.RAVIKUMAR, WHO APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE, IN THAT MATTER AND WHO IS PRESENT IN THIS COURT, INFORMS US THAT HE HAD IN FACT ARGUED THAT THE RULE WAS CLARIFACTORY IN NA TURE AND WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY, AND THAT, THE DIVISION BENCH , THEREFORE, DISCUSSED THE IMPACT OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 15.HOWEVER, IT IS, OUR VIEW, AS INDICATED ABOVE, IN DEPENDENT OF THE REASONING GIVEN IN M/S.REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITE D CASE THAT RULE 8D CANNOT BE READ IN A MANNER, WHICH TAKES IT BEYOND THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE MAIN PROVISION, WHICH IS, SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 225/MDS/2017. :- 6 -: 15.1.THEREFORE, AS ADVERTED TO ABOVE, RULE 8D, CANN OT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE. 15.2.IN ANY EVENT, THE TRIBUNAL, VIA, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT HAS REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15.3.THEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE ARE O F THE VIEW, THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR QUA THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS TO SUCCEED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:- 22ND JUNE, 2017 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF