The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem v. M/S.thriveni Earth Movers Pvt.ltd., Salem-16

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 15.2.2016 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN T.C.A.No.109 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem. ...AppellantVs M/s.Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt.Ltd.,Salem-16. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against theorder dated 29.5.2015 made in I.T.A.No.308/Mds/2015 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai againstthe Order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax(A), Salem-7, dated28/11/2014 made in ITA.No.1/2014-15, and against the order ofthe Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Range-1, Salem, dated28/2/2014 made in PAN.NO. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J The Revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : "(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal wasright in setting aside the appellate order anddirecting the Assessing Officer to redo thedisallowance made under Section 14Aread with Rule8D, when the Assessing Officer had correctly donedisallowance as per the above provisions of law ? and(ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal wasright in directing the Assessing Officer to reconsiderthe interest free funds available with the assessee,including the profits and the extent of borrowed funds https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the extent of exempted income earned by theassessee, which are not provided under Rule 8D of theIncome Tax Rules, 1962 ?" 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for theappellant/ Revenue. 3. The assessee filed a return of income declaring aparticular quantum of income and a short term capital gain. Anotice under Section 143(1) was issued and a hearing wasconducted. Disallowance under Section 14A claimed by theassessee was not permitted. The amount was added to the incomeof the assessee. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal partially andremitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer in respect ofcertain items. The assessee filed a further appeal before theTribunal. The Tribunal took the view that it is necessary tofind out whether the investments were made by the assessee fromthe borrowed funds or from interest free funds available withthe assessee. Hence, the Tribunal set aside the orders of theLower Authorities and remitted the matter back to the AssessingOfficer for finding out the interest free funds available withthe assessee including the profits and the extent of borrowedfunds. 5. In so far the expenditure claimed by the assessee said tohave been incurred for repair, renovation and maintenance ofhospitals, etc., is concerned, the Tribunal held that the samealso requires reconsideration in the light of the issue underSection 14A being remanded back. It is against the said order ofthe Tribunal that the Revenue is on appeal. 6. From a bare reading of the facts of the case that we havenarrated above and the questions of law that the Revenue hasframed for our consideration, it is clear that the appeal doesnot involve any substantial questions of law. In the order ofremand, the Tribunal did not record any categorical finding onthe question of disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunalmerely remanded the matter for the purpose of finding out as tohow much of the funds were interest free funds or not. It is nota question of law that could arise for our consideration underSection 260A. 7. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. 6. From a bare reading of the facts of the case that we havenarrated above and the questions of law that the Revenue hasframed for our consideration, it is clear that the appeal doesnot involve any substantial questions of law. In the order ofremand, the Tribunal did not record any categorical finding onthe question of disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunalmerely remanded the matter for the purpose of finding out as tohow much of the funds were interest free funds or not. It is nota question of law that could arise for our consideration underSection 260A. 7. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. -s/d-Assistant RegistrarTrue CopySub-Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income-Tax(A)Salem-73.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1Salem+1 cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate sr.9712T.C.A.No.109 of 2016ev(co)aa26/02/2016