2021 (12) TMI 824 - HC - Income Tax

Cancellation of Assessment u/ 153C - HELD THAT - Tribunal after taking note of the factual position which was available both before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT (A) held that there is nothing to indicate that the seized documents were disclaimed by NKG in whose case search was conducted. Furthermore, the Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not referred to any material to indicate that the assessee is the owner of those seized documents. Thus, on facts, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. Thus, we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration on this issue. Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) on mining of coal - Tribunal had taken note of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. G. S. Atwal Company 2001 (2) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT for the proposition that mining of coal is production - HELD THAT - Applying the said decision the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee. This issue has also been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that extraction and processing of mineral ore amounts to production within the meaning of word under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act . Thus, the finding rendered by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Whether investments made by the assessee in the group companies shall not be considered while applying the provisions of Section 14A read with rule 8D? - HELD THAT - As assessee contended that when their own funds have been deployed for the investment, there is no income which is not included while computing the total income of the assessee and Section 14A would not apply. The assessee also challenged the finding of the Assessing Officer as being not a speaking order and criptic. Though such was the contention, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee has furnished the position of its own funds vis- -vis the total investment but declined relief to the assessee by observing that the assessee has not shown that the shares were acquired from its own fund without taking benefit of loan. When this finding was challenged before the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has proceeded on a different footing by making a reference that the investment is in the interest of a strategic investment. Though such a contention has been raised during the course of argument, the issue itself was whether this investment was from the own funds or borrowed funds. This exercise appears to have not been done by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) or the Tribunal - thus issue requires to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of assessments framed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.
3. Deletion of additions made under Section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11.

Analysis:

Cancellation of assessments under section 153C:
The High Court examined the appeal challenging the cancellation of assessments framed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked justification to exercise jurisdiction under section 153C as there was no indication that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that no substantial question of law arose in this regard.

Claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia):
Regarding the claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the Tribunal referred to precedents establishing that mining activities constitute "production." Citing relevant case law, including a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the assessee was upheld by the High Court, which deemed no interference necessary.

Deletion of additions under Section 14A for AY 2010-11:
The Court addressed the issue of deleting additions made under Section 14A for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, but the Court found the order lacking in particulars and reasons. The CIT(A) also did not provide relief, leading to a challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for not addressing whether the investment was from own funds or borrowed funds. Consequently, the Court remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, indicating that the matter was factual and required further examination.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the appeal, ruling against the revenue on the issue of additional depreciation and remanding the matter of additions under Section 14A for further assessment. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Section 14A issue considering all relevant documents presented.