DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana V. M/s Indian Sucrose Limited, Ludhiana

ITA 90/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1308 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 90-CHD.-2018 M/S INDIAN SUCROSE LIMITED, LUDHIANA 2 NOTIFICATION OF CBDTS CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.02.2014, BUT THE SAID HIGH COURT'S DECISION HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CBDTS ABOVE CIRCULAR, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THEIR NOTICE? 2. WHETHER UPON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS,8,72,277/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST ON ADVANCES GIVEN FOR BOOKING OF FLAT, WHICH ARE FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES? 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. GROUND. NO. 1 : THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE DID NOT EARN ANY TAX EXEMPT. HE, THEREFORE, HAS RELIED UPON VARIOU S DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THAT OF JURISDIC TIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IN CIT, FARIDAB AD VS. LAKHANI MARKETING INC. [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 257 (P&H), C IT VS. HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD [2015] 57 TAXMANN.COM 28, CO RRTECH ENERGY (P) LTD [2014] 272 CTR 262 (GUJ.), SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD [2015) 272 CTR 277 (ALL.) AND CHEMINVEST LTD. [2015] 378 ITR 33 (DELHI). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY TAX EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR, HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 90-CHD.-2018 M/S INDIAN SUCROSE LIMITED, LUDHIANA 4 THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE SUFFICIENT OW N FUNDS AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND FURTHER THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID IN VESTMENTS. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) ON THIS GROUND ALSO AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AR E, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 7 . GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-09.2018 SD./- SD/- (B.R.R KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.09.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR