TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are held on record. It has further held that income tax proceedings are not strictly adversarial in nature and the intention of the Revenue should be to tax the real income. Thus in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could not made, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be denied to withdraw the suo moto disallowance u/s 14A - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2763/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2021 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Y. K. Sharma, C.A. Revenue by : Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was not provided by the assessee. Assessee was asked to justify the basis of disallowance more so when it had incurred finance costs of ₹ 27,36,768/- against the total earnings from operations of ₹ 29,20,038/-. Assessee was also asked to justify as to why interest expenses not be considered for disallowance. Before AO, assessee inter alia submitted that considering the present interpretation of law, disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act was not required as also it had not earned any exempt income. The assessee therefore submitted that the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee be treated as withdrawn. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO was of the view that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT. He thereafter deleted the additional disallowance of ₹ 14,03,036/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act but upheld the suo moto disallowance made by assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 6. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee had not earned any exempt income and in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A of the Act and for this preposition he relied on the decision rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2014] 90 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 13,33,732/- u/s 14A of the Act. It is also a fact that before the AO as well as CIT(A), assessee had sought the withdrawal of suo moto disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act in view of the settled law and the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court wherein it was held that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is called for when assessee has not earned any exempt income. The fact of assessee having not earned exempt income is not disputed by the lower authorities. CIT(A) did not allow the withdrawal of the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee in the absence of filing of revised return by the assessee. The last date for filing the revised return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 by the assessee u/s 139(5) of the Act was 31st March 2014. Befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
