ITO, Ward- 3(4), New Delhi V. Athena Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6328/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2448 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 6328/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL ME MBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACC OUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6328/DEL/20 17(A.Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS M/S ATHENA ENERGY VENTURES PVT. LTD. J-38, SECOND FLOOR, B K DUTT COLONY, JOR BAGH LANE NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER D ATED 07/08/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-1, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 3,14,71,557/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE AS SESSEE, HENCE WE ARE TAKING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE C IT(A). APPELLANT BY SH. V. K. KATARIA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 17.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.02.2021 2 ITA NO. 6328/DEL/2017 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUS T AND PROPER IN DELETING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D AND RELIED UPON THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED ALL THE REL EVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS A SUBMISSION AT PAGE 3 PARA 1. 1 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH CLEARLY SET OUT THAT ASSESS EE HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME. IN-FACT, THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO THAT THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR TOWARDS EX EMPT INCOME. THUS, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT 61 TAXMAN.COM 118 (DELHI) AND CIT VS. HOLCIM LTD. 57 TAXMAN 28. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A DETAILED FINDING AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN FACT, THE ISSU E IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT DECISION IN CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMEN T LTD. VS. CIT 402 ITR 640. THUS, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17TH D AY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 IN PRESENCE OF LD. DR. SD/- SD/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 17/02/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 3 ITA NO. 6328/DEL/2017 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI