Income Tax Appeal v. M/S. Ballarpur Industries Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2016The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Civil Lines, Nagpur. -vs- M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's ordersor directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Sharad N. Bhattad, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.DATE : 13.10.2016. By this income tax appeal, the appellant–Departmentchallenges the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax and theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur. On hearing the learned Counsel for the Department and on aperusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the Authoritieshave recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt incomeearned by the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities relied on thejudgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 749/2014,which holds that the expression “does not form part of the totalincome” in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages thatthere should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includiblein the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purposeof disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Section14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply to the facts of thiscase as no exempt income was received or receivable during therelevant previous year. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer thatany actual income was received by the assessee and the same wasincludible in the total income. In the facts of the case, the Authoritiesheld that since the investments made by the assessee in the sister KHUNTE concerns were not the actual income received by the assessee, theycould not have been included in the total income. The findings of facts recorded by both the Authorities do notgive rise to any substantial question of law. Since no substantial question of law arises in this income taxappeal, the income tax appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE