M.A. NO. 169/Del/2020 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “D” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Misc. App. No. 169/Del/2020 [ in आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 2273/Del/2013 ] िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Karnal Circle, Karnal. बनाम Vs. M/s. Liberty Shoes Ltd., G. T. Road, Gharaunda, Karnal, Haryana. PAN No. AAACL3146K अपीलाथᱮ /Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरतीकᳱओरसे /Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate; राज᭭वकᳱओरसे / Department by : Shri Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. D. R.; सुनवाईकᳱतारीख/ Date of hearing : 17/11/2023 उ᳃ोषणाकᳱतारीख/Pronouncement on : 07/12/2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. : 1. Through this Miscellaneous application the Revenue request s to recall the order of the Tribunal in ITA. No. 2273/Del/2013 dated M.A. NO. 169/Del/2020 2 10.10.2019 on the ground that in view of the Circular No. 5 of the CBDT dated 11.02.2014 which clarified that Rule 8D read with section 14A provides for disallowance of expenditure even where a taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income and, therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record in deciding that no disallowance is warranted in the absence of any exempt income. 2. Heard rival contentions perused the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal we notice that the Tribunal adjudicated the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Excise Duty refunds in view of the decision of CIT Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [317 ITR 353 (Del)]. We also observe that the Tribunal regarding the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in the absence of any dividend income earned by the assessee, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether any exempt income was earned by the assessee and if no exempt income was earned directed to delete the disallowance keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2015) 372 ITR 694] and CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [(2014) 272 CTR 282]. The Tribunal has taken a view based on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. The Revenue in its Miscellaneous application requests for recall of the order on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on record. However, we see no merit in the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue. M.A. NO. 169/Del/2020 3 3. In the result, the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 07/12/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( M. BALAGANESH ) ( C. N. PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 07/12/2023. *MEHTA* आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक / Assessee 2. राजˢ / Revenue 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ- अपील / CIT (A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, DELHI / DR, ITAT, DELHI 6. गाडŊ फाइल / Guard file. By order ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi. Date of dictation 04.12.2023 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 05.12.2023 M.A. NO. 169/Del/2020 4 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member 07.12.2023 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 07.12.2023 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 07.12.2023 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS 07.12.2023 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 07.12.2023 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 07.12.2023 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order