TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The revenue's ground of appeal, on this issue, stood dismissed by Tribunal vide order dated 08.09.2021. Nevertheless, it could not be said that Ld. AO failed to make proper enquiries as to disallowance u/s. 14A as alleged by Ld. Pr. CIT. As on the date of revisions, the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A was already adjudicated by learned first appellate authority and the order of Ld. AO stood merged with the appellate order on that date. Therefore, revision of order, on this issue, would have no legs to stand and are liable to be quashed. - ITA No. 1717/Chny/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2022 - V. Durga Rao, Member (J) And Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Member (A) For the Appellant : R. Sivaraman, (Advocate)-Ld. AR For the Respondents : G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 22.09.2016 has called for details of the scheme of reverse merger with Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited and the impact on financials and the accounting treatment given with the justification of the same and the appellant had furnished the reply dated 18.10.2016 along with copy of Madras High Court order dated 24.06.2013 along with scheme of amalgamation and the Assessing Officer had considered it in the course of assessment proceedings. 5. The Pr. CIT failed to note the facts on record regarding two successive amalgamations (mergers) one of Shriram Enterprise Holdings Private Limited with Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited, the second, Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited, the amalgamated company merging with Shriram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. The copy of the order has been placed on record. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, submitted that Ld. AO failed to make proper enquires on the issues as flagged in the impugned order and therefore, revision was quite justified. 3. Having heard rival submissions and after going through the orders of lower authorities, our adjudication would be as under. 4. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in finance activities. An assessment was framed for the year on 31.12.2016 wherein one of the additions made by Ld. AO was disallowance u/s. 14A for ₹ 77.36 Lacs. During assessment proceedings, it was the submission of the assessee that no exempt income was earned during the year and therefore, no disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 6549.99 Lacs in the Balance Sheet of the assessee Company. The difference i.e., ₹ 95521.40 Lacs being capital gain escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. 6. However, the assessee refuted the allegation of Ld. Pr. CIT by submitting that amalgamation was approved by Hon'ble High Court of Madras and no capital gain liability arose there-from. The assessee also assailed any further disallowance u/s. 14A. However, not convinced, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the submissions made by the assessee were not considered by Ld. AO during original assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO should have verified these aspects and pass the assessment order. The disallowance u/s. 14A ought to have been computed u/r 8D(2)(i) 8D(2)(ii) also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
