The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S. Ballarpur Industries Limited

1609itl33.16 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.33 OF 2016 (The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Limited) ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's ordersor directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.N. Bhattad, Advocate with Shri A.J. Bhoot,Advocate for appellant. ---------- CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 By this income tax appeal, the appellant –Department challenges the orders of the Commissionerof Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Nagpur. On hearing the learned Counsel for theDepartment and on a perusal of the impugned orders, itappears that both the Authorities have recorded a clearfinding of fact that there was no exempt income earnedby the assessee. While holding so, the Authorities reliedon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income TaxAppeal No. 749/2014, which holds that the expression“does not form part of the total income” in Section 14Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages that there shouldbe an actual receipt of the income, which is notincludible in the total income, during the relevantprevious year for the purpose of disallowing anyexpenditure incurred in relation to the said income. TheIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions 2/3 of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would notapply to the facts of this case as no exempt income wasreceived or receivable during the relevant previous year.It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any actualincome was received by the assessee and the same wasincludible in the total income. The Authorities haverightly held that since the order of the Assessing Officerwas based on the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal that was reversed by the Delhi High Court, theorder of the Assessing Officer should fall as the order onthe basis of which it was passed, was reversed. In thefacts of the case, the Authorities held that since theinvestments made by the assessee in the sister concernswere not the actual income received by the assessee,they could not have been included in the total income. The findings of facts recorded by both theAuthorities do not give rise to any substantial question oflaw. Since no substantial question of law arises inthis income tax appeal, the income tax appeal isdismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE 3/3 CERTIFICATE I certify that this order uploaded is a trueand correct copy of original signed order. Uploaded by :Uploaded on :Kamal H. Jeswani19/9/2016Private Secretary