The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. Dlf Universal Ltd. (Formerly Known As Dlf Retain Developers Ltd

ITA-411-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-411-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....Appellant. Versus DLF Universal Ltd. (formerly known as DLF Retain Developers Ltd.)...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.*** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA Nos.411and 424 of 2018 as according to learned counsel for the revenue, identicalquestions of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts arebeing extracted from ITA-411-2018. 2.ITA-411-2018 has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the orderdated 19.3.2018 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) in ITA No. 2681/DEL/2016, for the assessment year 2012-13,claiming the following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in upholding -2- the finding of the CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additionmade on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, ignoring the CBDT Circular No. 5 of2014 dated 11.2.2014 which clarifies that disallowanceunder Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 is to be made even when the taxpayer in aparticular year has not earned any exempt income?” 3.Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of ITA-411-2018 as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee filed its return ofincome for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.9.2012 declaring loss of` 217,71,42,517/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised return ofincome on 29.3.2014 declaring loss. The Assessing Officer vide orderdated 13.11.2014 (Annexure A-I) completed the assessment under Section143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowance of` 1,95,62,312/- under Section 14A of the Act on tax free income of` 10,76,553/- which was dividend income. Feeling aggrieved, the assesseefiled an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [forbrevity “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 2.3.2016 (Annexure A-II) allowed the appeal and deleted the disallowance of ` 1,95,62,312/-under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules,1962. Against the order, Annexure A-II, the revenue filed an appeal beforethe Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.3.2018 (Annexure A-III)upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.Hence, the present appeals by the revenue. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue ITA-411-2018 -3- that the issue involved in the appeal is covered by the judgment of thisCourt in ITA-322-2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chandigarh v. M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Limited, Chandigarh)decided on 28.8.2018, wherein the appeal filed by the revenue against thedeletion of disallowance of ` 40,28,526/- under Section 14A of the Act readwith Rule 8D of the Rules, was dismissed. 6.Accordingly, the present appeals are also dismissed in terms ofITA-322-2016. 7.CM-25089-CII-2018 has been filed under Section 5 of theLimitation Act, 1963 for condonation of 4 days' delay in filing ITA-424-2018. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no further orders arerequired to be passed in the application for condonation of delay in filingthe appeal and the same is disposed of as such. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 29, 2019gbs (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)JUDGE Whether Speaking/ReasonedYes/NoWhether ReportableYes/No