2023 (6) TMI 358 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - According to the Tribunal, no exempt income has been earned by assessee during the period under consideration, and therefore, disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted - HELD THAT - There is no dispute, that this issue is covered by a judgment of Cheminvest Limited 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT and judgment passed in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd 2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . One of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., was part of the bench in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd 2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Revenue does not dispute the fact, that the special leave petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court 2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, challenge to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Condonation of Delay Application:
An application was filed by the appellant seeking condonation of a 55-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The respondent, represented by Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Advocate, did not oppose the application. The court allowed the prayer made in the application, and subsequently disposed of the application.

Challenge to Tribunal's Order on Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal in question pertains to Assessment Year 2014-2015. The appellant sought to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found that no exempt income was earned by the respondent during the relevant period, hence disallowance under Section 14A was deemed unwarranted. The amount of deletion sustained was quantified at Rs. 3,35,28,383.

Precedents and Dismissal of Special Leave Petition:
The issue in question was found to be covered by a judgment of a coordinate bench of the Court dated 02.09.2015 in a case titled Cheminvest Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI. Additionally, a judgment passed in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. was also referenced. It was noted that one of the judges was part of the bench in the latter case. The appellant's counsel did not dispute that a special leave petition against the judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on both delay and merits grounds. As a result, no substantial question of law was found to arise for consideration. The appeal was closed, with the information that special leave petitions against other judgments were pending before the Supreme Court being placed on record.