PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi dated 14th December, 2012 for the AY 2009-10.
2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
01. Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,52,68,698/- made u/s 14A ignoring the fact that the method of disallowance adapted by the assessee is found to be factually incorrect as AR was unable to justify its computation of expenses, attributable to earning of dividend income.
02. Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,55,97,765/- made on account of expenditure u/s 57(3).
03. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of ITA-1212/Del/2013 2 appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.
3. However, we find that both the above grounds are misconceived which would be evident from the following computation made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order:- With these remarks, income of the assessee is computed as under: Income from Short Term Capital Gains 6,30,945 Add : Disallowance of loss u/s 94(7) 55,157 6,86,102 Income from Other Sources Interest Income 41,81,11,353 Less : Interest paid as per Sec. 57(iii) 8,55,97,765 33,25,13,588 Exempt Income Dividend 19,25,655 Less : Expenses u/s 14A 144,52,68,698 Nil Total Taxable Income 33,31,99,690
4. From the above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has not made any addition of `144,52,68,698/- under Section 14A. In fact, he worked out the above amount as expenses under Section 14A, reduced the same from dividend income and accordingly, the dividend income was treated at nil. Thus, in substance, no addition of `144,52,68,698/- was made. So, the question of deletion of the above addition by the CIT(A) cannot arise. Similarly, we find that the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction of interest amounting to `8,55,97,765/- while computing the interest income under the head income from other sources. There was no addition of `8,55,97,765/- by the Assessing Officer. So, the question of deleting the same does not arise. The appeal was filed on 4th March, 2013. However, the grounds of appeal have not been modified. In our opinion, both the grounds of appeal are misconceived and therefore, liable to be rejected being misconceived. ITA-1212/Del/2013 3 We, therefore, dismiss the Revenues appeal at the threshold. However, we may add that the Revenue is at liberty to file the appeal afresh, if so advised, raising the correct grounds of appeal arising from the order of learned CIT(A).
5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 14th August, 2014. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (G.D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 14.08.2014 Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant : Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), New Delhi.
2. Respondent : M/s Caraf Builders & Constructions Pvt.Ltd., 1-E, Naaz Cinema Complex, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110 055.
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar