R.Sivagami, Salem V. ACIT, Salem

ITA 900/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90633 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAGHU
• Keywords: Salary income; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! , ' #$ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.900 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) SMT.R.SIVAGAMI , 274,KAMARAJANAR ROAD,SALEM DIST., ATTUR, 636 102 VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE1(1), SALEM. PAN AXYPS 7812 E ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A.NO.903 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) SHRI R. RAJENDRAN, , 274,KAMARAJANAR ROAD,SALEM DIST., ATTUR, 636 102 VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE1(1), SALEM. PAN ACFPR 4140 M ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) ITA NOS. 900,903,904 /MDS/2015 2 ./ I.T.A.NO.904 /MDS./2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) S HRI M.RAMAS AMI(HUF) , 35-A,NARAYANAPURAM,SALEM DIST., ATTUR, 636 102 VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE1(1), SALEM. PAN AAEHR 8696 B ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.K.RAGHU, C.A / RESPONDENT BY : DR.B.NISCHAL ,JCIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 14.07.2015 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.07.2015 + / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-18, CHENNAI IN ITA N O.429/14-15 DATED 29.01.2015, IN ITA NO.428/14-15 DATED 29.01.2 015 AND IN ITA NO.389/14-15 DATED 29.01.2015 IN THE CASE OF SMT.SI VAGAMI, SHRI R.RAJENDRAN,AND AND SHRI M.RAMASAMI(HUF) , PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION-250 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSUES AND GROUNDS ITA NOS. 900,903,904 /MDS/2015 3 IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE IDENTICAL AND SIM ILAR GROUNDS IN ALL THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS CITED HEREIN ABOVE, H OWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A),CHENNAI WHO HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULES 8D(III). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS IS WIT H RESPECT TO INVOKING OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND COMPUTATION OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME BY APPLYING RULE 8D O F THE ACT, SINCE ALL THE ASSESSEES HAVE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10(34) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF ALL T HE ASSESSEES WAS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN EARNING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURA L, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, RENTAL INCOME, INCOME FROM SALARY AND IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEY HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE W HATSOEVER ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS MADE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND IN COME WHICH IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE OTHER TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE ITA NOS. 900,903,904 /MDS/2015 4 ASSESSEE. ALL THE ASSESSEES FILED BEFORE US THE CO MPUTATION STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS TO ESTABLISH TH EIR CLAIM. LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE R EVENUE AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT RULE-8D OF THE INCOME TAX RU LES,1962 WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF ALL THE ASSESSEES. IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.RAJENDRAN AND SMT.R.SIVAGAMI, BOTH BEING INDIVIDUALS, ARE EARNING INCOME ONLY FRO M SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AND AGRICULTUR E. ON VERIFYING THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT FILED BEFORE US, IT IS APPARE NT THAT THEY HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE THAT IS REDUCED FROM TH E TAXABLE INCOME AS DEDUCTION IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI M.RAMASAMI (HUF), THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL; HOW EVER THERE ARE EARNINGS FROM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ALSO. APP ARENTLY FROM THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE ASSES SEES HAS CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS TR EATED AS DEDUCTION FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME, A PORTION OF WHICH MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE ITA NOS. 900,903,904 /MDS/2015 5 CONSIDERED VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A CANN OT BE INVOKED AND THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED I N ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES WILL NOT ARISE . HOWEVER, SINCE THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF AC COUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES BY THE LD. A.R FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FIL ES OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS PER LAW AND MERIT AS PER OUR DISCUSSIONS HEREINABOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' #$ % ) ((CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND JULY, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. '#$$ %&$'& /COPY TO: $ 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. $ ($)* /CIT(A) 4. $ ( /CIT 5. &+,$ - /DR 6. ,.$/ /G