Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Section 14A & Depreciation

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ruling that Section 14A cannot be invoked without exempt income. The Tribunal also supported the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on plant and machinery not actively used during the relevant assessment year, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on both grounds. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's filing of a cross objection but dismissed it as not maintainable since the Revenue's appeal was unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of exempt income.
2. Disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery not put to use during the relevant assessment year.
3. Condonation of delay in filing cross objection by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of exempt income:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to not apply Section 14A, arguing that the assessee held exempt income-bearing investments and thus Rule 8D should be triggered regardless of actual exempt income earned. The CIT(A) had relied on the Madras High Court's decision in M/s. Redington India Ltd., which pertained to a pre-Rule 8D period, to conclude that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted without exempt income. The Revenue cited CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, asserting that Section 14A applies even without exempt income. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd., affirming that Section 14A cannot be invoked without exempt income. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

2. Disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery not put to use during the relevant assessment year:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance, arguing the assessee did not establish the actual use of plant and machinery within the relevant year. The Assessing Officer had disallowed depreciation based on the improbability of producing significant volumes of finished goods in one day. The CIT(A) referenced the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation and the Bombay High Court's ruling in Whittle Anderson Ltd. vs. CIT, which support depreciation on machinery ready for use, even if not actively used. The Tribunal found the assessee provided sufficient evidence of installation and commissioning before 30.03.2013, including production details. The Tribunal concluded the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on assumptions and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

3. Condonation of delay in filing cross objection by the assessee:
The assessee sought condonation for a 66-day delay in filing a cross objection, attributing it to the Authorized Representative being out of town. The Tribunal, considering the reasons provided as reasonable cause, condoned the delay and admitted the cross objection. However, since the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on all issues, the cross objection became infructuous and was dismissed as not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both the applicability of Section 14A in the absence of exempt income and the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. Consequently, the assessee's cross objection was also dismissed as not maintainable. The order was pronounced on 21st April 2021.

---