Bajaj Resources Limited Hyd v. Dcit Circle 1 2 Hyderabad Hyderabad

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Benches B Hyderabad Before Shri D Manmohan Vice President And Shri B Ramakotaiah Accountant Member I T A No 768 Hyd 2017 Assessment Year 2012 13 Bajaj Resources Limited Hyderabad Pan Aaacd 8001 D Vs Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 2 Hyderabad Appellant Respondent For Assessee Shri Sandeep Jhanwar Ar For Revenue Shri Rajeev Ranka Dr Date Of Hearing 11 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 22 12 2017 O R D E R Per B Ramakotaiah A M This Is An Appeal By Assessee Against The Order Of Th E Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Hyderabad U S 263 Of The Income Tax Act Act Directing The Assessing Office R Ao To Make Certain Disallowances U S 14 A Of The Act Ass Essee Is Contesting The Order And Raised The Following Grounds 1 Under The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I Hyderabad Has Erred I N Law And Facts In Passing The Order U S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1 961 Dated 28 03 2017 And Treating The Assessment Order Passed By Dy Com Missioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 2 Hyderabad U S 143 3 Dated 24 02 2015 As Erroneous And Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue I T A No 768 Hyd 2017 2 2 Under The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case T He Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I Hyderabad Has Erred I N Directing The Ld Ao To Make Disallowance Of Rs 1 14 69 684 U S 14 A In Respect Of Exempt Dividend Income Of Rs 77 02 77 782 Earned By The Assessee The Said Disallowance Is Bad In Law And On Facts Of The Case As No Expenses Have Been Incurred By The Assessee For Earning The Said Dividend Income 2 Briefly Stated Assessee Has Earned A Dividend Inc Ome Of Rs 77 02 77 782 And Claimed Exemption Ld Cit Was Of The Opinion That There Are Non Current Investments As On 31 03 2011 To The Extent Of Rs 3322 51 Lakhs And As On 31 03 2012 Rs 38 840 24 Lakhs Since The Reserves And Surplus Are Only Rs 11 347 59 Lakhs He Was Of The Opinion That Assessee Would Have Diverted Its Borrowed Funds For Investments On Which Exempt Income Was Earned By Giving Show Cause Notice And Obtaining Re Ply From Assessee Ld Cit In His 16 Page Order Has Consider Ed Various Aspects And Directed The Ao To Disallow The Expenditure Of Rs 1 14 69 684 U S 14 A Assessee Is Contesting The Sa Me 3 Ld Counsel In His Arguments Referred To The Detaile D Submissions Made Before The Ld Cit That No Part Of The Borrowed Funds Have Been Diverted And There Was No Expenditure Incurred For Earning Dividend Income He Has Questioned The Wo Rking Given By The Ld Cit It Was Further Submitted That Ld Cit Follo Wed The Order Of Ao In Later Year Verbatim Which Matter Is Pend Ing Before The Ld Cit A And That Order Passed By The Ao U S 143 3 Is The Basis For The Present 263 Proceedings It Was His Sub Mission That On Facts There Is No Need For Any Addition Disallowa Nce U S 14 A Of The Act I T A No 768 Hyd 2017 3 4 Ld Dr However Reiterated The Arguments Of The Cit In Justifying The Disallowances 5 We Have Considered The Rival Contentions And Peruse D The Order Of Pr Cit I Hyderabad Since The Very Issue Of Addition U S 14 A Was Pending Before The Ld Cit A Based On The F Indings Of The Ao In Earlier Year We Are Of The Opinion That The Pre Sent Order Directing The Ao To Make Disallowance U S 14 A With Out Being Examined By The Ao In This Assessment Year May Resul T In Preventing Ld Cit A Taking Independent Decision In Th E Appeal Of Later Year Since The Facts Are To Be Examined Before Making Any Disallowance We Are Of The Opinion That The Direction Of Cit To Ao Is Not Appropriate In The Circumstances Accordingly We Without Going To The Merits Of Various Contentions By Assessee Modify The Order Of Cit And Direct The Ao To Examine The Facts And To Establish Whether Assessee Has Diverted Any Of The B Orrowed Funds And Whether The Provisions Of Section 36 1 Iii Will Apply And Also Give A Finding Whether There Is Any Expenditure Incurr Ed By Assessee In Earning The Dividend Income In Fact Ass Essee Is In The Finance Business Therefore There Are Other Expenditu Res Also Which May Be Directly Related To The Income Earned Whi Ch Was Taxable Therefore Ao Should Examine Various Expend Itures Necessary For That Business Before Coming To A Conclu Sion Whether Any Adhoc Disallowance Under Rule 8 D Rws 14 A Is Req Uired To Be Made It Is Also Fact That Ao Has Not Considered Disal Lowance U S 14 A In The Original Assessment Completed U S 143 3 May Be That Ao Has Accepted Assessees Contentions Keeping That A Lso In Mind We Modify The Direction Of Cit In Para 5 3 3 Directin G The Ao To Examine The Issue Of Disallowance U S 14 A Afresh I F Any I T A No 768 Hyd 2017 4 Consequential Order Is Passed Subsequent To This Order That Stands Cancelled The Entire Issue Of 14 A Is Restored To The File Of Ao For Fresh Examination After Giving Due Opportunity To Assessee Assessee Is Free To Raise Objections In The Revised Pr Oceedings And All Issues Are Open For Consideration Contest Ordere D Accordingly In The Result Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purpos Es Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 22 Nd December 2017 Sd Sd D Manmohan B Ramakotaiah Vice President Accountant Memb Er Hyderabad Dated 22 Nd December 2017 Tnmm I T A No 768 Hyd 2017 5 Copy To 1 Bajaj Resources Limited C O Shri Sandeep Jhanw Ar M S Mgb Co Llp B 144 A 1 St Floor Mangal Marg Bapu Nagar Jaipur 2 The Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 2 Hyderabad 3 Pr Cit I Hyderabad 4 D R Itat Hyderabad 5 Guard File