Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3 v. Bhilwara Energy Ltd

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM APPL. 38117/2023 in ITA 409/2023 CM APPL. 38120/2023 in ITA 410/2023 CM APPL. 38123/2023 in ITA 411/2023 CM APPL. 38126/2023 in ITA 412/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing ITAs 409/2023 & 411/2023 and 02 days in filing ITAs 410/2023 & 412/2023]

2. These are the applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.[1] According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 2 days in filing ITAs 410/2023 & 412/2023, while in ITAs 409/2023 & 411/2023, there is a delay of 11 days.

3. For the reasons, mentioned in the applications, the delay is condoned.

4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM APPL. 38118/2023 in ITA 409/2023 CM APPL. 38121/2023 in ITA 410/2023 CM APPL. 38124/2023 in ITA 411/2023 CM APPL. 38127/2023 in ITA 412/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 118 days in refiling]

5. These are the applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 5.[1] According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 118 days.

6. For the reasons given in the applications, the delay is condoned.

7. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITAs 409/2023, 410/2023, 411/2023 & 412/2023

8. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 (ITA 409/2023), 2015-16 (ITA 410/2023), 2017-18 (ITA 411/2023) and 2016-17 (ITA 412/2023).

9. Via these appeals, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] dated 02.08.2022.

10. Mr Abhishek Maratha, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, submits that the issue that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] in view of the fact that no income exempt from tax had been earned during the relevant period.

11. According to us, the issue is covered by the following decisions:

(i) Judgement dated 02.09.2015 passed in ITA 749/2014, titled Cheminvest

(ii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad

(iii) Order dated 30.05.2023 passed in ITA Nos. 316/2023 and 317/2023, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 4 v. IL And FS Energy Development Co Ltd.

12. Insofar as Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. is concerned, one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a member of the Bench. 12.[1] Mr Maratha does not dispute that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred against the said judgment, which was dismissed via order dated 02.07.2018; which is reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). The order passed by Supreme Court reads as follows: “1. The Special Leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.”