9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmity in order passed by Ld. CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10. - Decided against the revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal." It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that facts for Assessment Years under consideration are identical. He submitted that Fern Healthcare Pvt.Ltd., was formerly known as Ranbaxy Healthcare Pvt.Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Ld.AO observed that assessee was engaged in the business of financing activity and investments in shares and securities. During the course of assessment proceedings for years under consideration, it was observed that assessee had investment income, from which income was claimed to be exempt under section 10 (34) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Ld.AO observed that assessee had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed by assessee correct. 3. Aggrieved by orders of Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2009-10. 4. It has been submitted by Ld.Sr.DR that appeals have been filed contesting addition that is deleted by Ld.CIT(A), made on account of disallowance of expenditure under section 14 A read with Rule 8D and upholding, disallowance as computed by assessee at ₹ 21,78,40,711/-for Assessment Year 2009-10 and ₹ 84,362,476/- for Assessment Year 2009-10. 5. During the course of arguments, Ld.Counsel raised a defensive plea that disallowance, as per law, cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by assessee, considering decision passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versus CIT reported in (2018) 91 taxman.com 154. 7. In the rejoinder, Ld.Counsel submitted that there is no estoppel against statute, by placing reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs V Chandra reported in 245 ITR 610(Del, he submitted that above defensive argument has been raised at this juncture, at the outset to maintain status quo and not to seek any additional relief. Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R Bamsi vs. CIT reported in 83 ITR 223, wherein a similar situation arose before Hon'ble Court. 8. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 9. The issue that needs adjudication is an interesting one. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he court below by leave of the court, there appears to be no reason why a respondent in support of the decree in his favour passed by the lower court should not be entitled to agitate a new ground and subject to the same limitation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view in Kanpur Industrial Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 59 ITR 407 (All.). That judgment has considered the position of an appeal under section 33 of the Income-tax Act along with the relevant Rules and that of an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22. The judgment holds that when the department files an appeal for an increase in the assessed income, the subjectmatter of the appeal is the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court would have necessitated the total dismissal of the suit, but the decree in so far as it was against him would stand." 9.2. In facts before us for both assessment years under consideration, it is observed that similar situation has been dealt with by Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein defensive plea has been raised by assessee therein, without filing Cross Objection/Cross Appeal, without seeking any additional relief over and above what has been allowed by Ld. CIT (A). 9.3. We observe that ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of B.R Bansi vs. CIT (supra), supports plea of Ld. Counsel, of maintaining status quo. It is observed that Ld.CIT (A) upheld disallowances computed by assessee, having regard to accounts maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
