Shriram Venture Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 586/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4875 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . #$ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.586/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. SHRIRAM VENTURE LIMITED, MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX, NO.4, LADY DESIKA ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI. PAN: AAACS7696D ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)- 15, CHENNAI DATED 24.09.2015 IN ITA NO.230/CIT(A)-1 5/14-15 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE LONE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.C IT(A) HAS 2 ITA NO.586/MDS/2016 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD.AO WHO HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE INVOKING SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D OF THE R ULES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE INVESTMENT BUSINESS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 29.09.2012. THE CASE WAS SELECTED UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND FINALLY ORDER U/S. 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 16.02.2 015 WHEREIN THE LD.AO DISALLOWED RS.1,99,06,939/- BY INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. ON A PPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO CI TING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGHER JUDICIARY. 4. BEFORE US THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE REVENU ES APPEAL FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ON THE SIMI LAR ISSUE, THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.735/MDS /2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 HAD REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE RELEVANT PO RTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FO R REFERENCE:- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN SUBSI DIARY 3 ITA NO.586/MDS/2016 COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOT FOR E ARNING THE EXEMPTED INCOME. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D R, THE DETAILS OF THE SUBSIDIARY/HOLDING COMPANY IN WHICH THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE COMPANIES IN WHICH THE INVESTMENTS WE RE MADE ARE SUBSIDIARY/HOLDING COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MADE AVAI LABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE M ADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY T O BRING ON RECORD THE DETAILS OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH THE IN VESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHAREHOLDING PATT ERN OF SUCH COMPANIES. MOREOVER, A BARE READING OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ADDED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO THE INCOME COMPUTED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER TH E ISSUE AFRESH AND BRING ON RECORD THE DETAILS OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN OF SUCH COMPANIES AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. SINCE THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALRE ADY REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THIS APPEAL OF THE 4 ITA NO.586/MDS/2016 ASSESSEE IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 17 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . #$ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ' #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %' /CHENNAI, &# /DATED 17 TH APRIL, 2017 JR # () *) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /1 /GF