2020 (5) TMI 359 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - no tax exempt income - HELD THAT - Undisputed facts of this case that there was no tax exempt income in the relevant previous year, we hold that no disallowance under section 14A could have been made, on the facts of this case and in the year before us. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee and delete the disallowance. Once we uphold the plea of the assessee that no disallowance under section 14A could have been made on the facts of this case, grievances of the Assessing Officer, against learned CIT(A) s partially deleting the disallowance under section 14A, become infructuous. Pronouncement of orders not within 90 days - pedantic view - Covid-19 epidemic - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. Even without the words ordinarily , in the light of the above analysis of the legal position, the period during which lockout was in force is to excluded for the purpose of time limits set out in rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Viewed thus, the exception, to 90-day time-limit for pronouncement of orders, inherent in rule 34(5)(c), with respect to the pronouncement of orders within ninety days, clearly comes into play in the present case. Of course, there is no, and there cannot be any, bar on the discretion of the benches to refix the matters for clarifications because of considerable time lag between the point of time when the hearing is concluded and the point of time when the order thereon is being finalized, but then, in our considered view, no such exercise was required to be carried out on the facts of this case.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of disallowance under Section 8D(2)(ii).
3. Applicability of disallowance under Section 14A while computing book profit under Section 115JB.
4. Procedural issue regarding the delay in pronouncement of the order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The primary issue was whether disallowance under Section 14A could be made when the assessee had not earned any tax-exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have any exempt income in the relevant previous year, yet the Assessing Officer proceeded with the disallowance. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Limited, which held that Section 14A envisages an actual receipt of income that is not includible in the total income for disallowance purposes. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd Vs CIT, which reiterated that Section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee and deleted the disallowance of ?80,51,200 sustained by the CIT(A).

2. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 8D(2)(ii):

The Assessing Officer's grievance was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ?3,35,40,340 under Section 8D(2)(ii), arguing that the assessee could not link its investments with its own funds. However, since the Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made due to the absence of exempt income, the grievances of the Assessing Officer became infructuous.

3. Applicability of Disallowance under Section 14A while Computing Book Profit under Section 115JB:

The Assessing Officer also contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the disallowance made under Section 14A cannot be considered while computing the book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into this issue in detail as it was rendered moot by the decision that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made in the absence of exempt income.

4. Procedural Issue Regarding the Delay in Pronouncement of the Order:

The Tribunal addressed the procedural issue of the delay in pronouncement of the order beyond 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It was noted that the delay was due to the unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government of India. The Tribunal referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court's orders extending the limitation period due to the lockdown and concluded that the period during which the lockdown was in force should be excluded for the purpose of the 90-day time limit for pronouncement of orders as stipulated in Rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowance of ?80,51,200 under Section 14A, and dismissed the appeal of the Assessing Officer as infructuous. The order was pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board.