Tax-12 v. India Infoline Investment Services Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2017 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12 vs. ...Appellant India Infoline Investment Services Ltd. ...Respondent ---- Mr. Nirmal Chandra Mohanty for the Appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani a/w Mr. P. C. Tripathi for the Respondent. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 12[th] OCTOBER 2021 P. C. : In this Appeal various grounds have been raised and 4questions of law have been proposed. The 4 questions are as under: "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal isjustified in setting aside the order of CIT(A) and inremanding the issue of disallowance under Section14A of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer ? B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justifiedin concluding that where the funds of a companywere more than the investment made in a year, theprovisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D areinapplicable ? C.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justifiedin holding that the funds from short termborrowings are not to be considered whileconsidering long term investments for computingthe disallowance for the purpose of Section14Aread with Rule 8D ? D.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justifiedin holding that the investment in a subsidiarycompany, from which exempt income is earned, isoutside the pale of Section14A read with Rule8D ?" 2.Mr. Mohanty says that question A is a general questionand therefore he will not press for it. As regards question B, Mr.Mohanty in all fairness stated that it is covered by the judgment of theApex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax1. Mr. Mohanty was pressing for question C and D to be framed assubstantial questions of law and was impugning the order passed byIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT").However, we find recorded the following in the impugned order ofITAT: "It was a common point between the parties thatthe present appeal of the assessee be decided in thelight of the orders of the Tribunal dated 25/7/2014(supra) and 23/2/2016(supra) in assessees' owncase for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11respectively and the matter be restored to the fileof AO for consideration afresh in accordance withlaw, keeping in view aforestated orders of theTribunal for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO with a direction to reconsider the application of Section 14A of the Act in this year in accordance with law, also in the light of the decision of the Tribunal dated 25/7/2014 (supra) and 23/2/2016 (supra) in assessees own case for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11. Needless to say that the AO shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing an order afresh in accordance with law. Weorder accordingly." 3.Therefore, Revenue has also agreed, as recorded in theorder of ITAT, that the appeal pending before ITAT be decided in thelight of the orders of Tribunal dated 25/7/2014 and 23/2/2016 inassesses's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively and the matter be restored to the file of AssessingOfficer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 4.In view of the consensus as recorded in the order by ITATappellant cannot impugn the said order in this appeal. We have alsoto note that it is not Appellant’s case that the order of ITAT wronglyrecords the consensus made as noted therein. 5.Hence the question of framing any substantial question oflaw does not arise. Appeal is dismissed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)