Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Jalco Financial Services (P) Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 18 December, 2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH 'D' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
and
SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
ITA No.6219/Del./2016
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)
M/s. Jalco Financial Services (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (1),
K-7B, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
New Delhi - 110 019.
(PAN : AAACJ2791E)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
ASSESSEE BY : None
REVENUE BY : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2020
Date of Order : 18.12.2020
ORDER
PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Appellant, M/s. Jalco Financial Services (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi qua the assessment year 2008-09 on the grounds inter alia that :-
"1. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case.2 ITA No.6219/Del./2016
2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in partially upholding the disallowance u/s 14A.
3. That having regards to the fact that no dividend income was earned on shares held as investment, the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A is squarely against the order of Jurisdictional HC in Cheminvest Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 33.
4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of the appeal at the time of hearing.
PRAYER:-
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) upholding the disallowance u/s 14A be set aside or any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, be given."
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : During the scrutiny proceedings, Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee company has earned Rs.1,79,87,005/- by way of dividend and claimed the same as exempt income on the ground that since no dividend income has been earned by the assessee on the share held as investment, no disallowance is called for under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Delhi). However, AO by relying upon the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which makes distinction between the dividend earned from investment and income from investment/stock-in-trade invoked the provisions 3 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D and proceeded to make disallowance of Rs.88,28,814/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii).
3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of an appeal who has restricted the addition to Rs.74,57,347/- from Rs.88,28,814/- made by the AO by partly allowing the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
4. Assessee has not preferred to put in appearance despite issuance of the notice and consequently, we proceeded to decide the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. DR as well as on the basis of documents available on the file.
5. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative for the revenue to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Undisputedly, the assessee has earned Rs.1,79,87,005/- by way of dividend during the year under assessment and claimed the same as exempt income on the ground that it has not incurred any expenditure to earn the dividend income from the shares held in stock-in-trade and with regard to shares held as investment, it did not earn any dividend income and as such no disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is called for and relied upon the decision 4 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Cheminvest Limited (supra). During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee company has given the detail of its key value of investment and stock-in-trade as per balance-sheet which is extracted for ready perusal as under :-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Value of Investment as at 1.4.2007 15,20,68,225
Value of investment as at 31.3.2008 39,53,68,225
Average value of investment 27,37,18,225
Value of stock-in-trade as at 1.4.2007 1,85,27,13,427
Value of stock-in-trade as at 31.3.2008 1,13,02,25,462
Average value of stock-in-trade 1,49,14,69,444
Average value of investment + stock- 1,76,57,62,891
in-trade (as computed
by the AO in
original
assessment
7. Ld. DR for the Revenue assisted the Bench by relying upon the CBDT Circular (supra) & decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in Civil Appeal Nos.104-109 of 2015 judgment dated 12.02.2018 and contended that provisions contained u/s 14A of the Act are applicable to expenditure in relation to exempt income from strategic investment/ stock-in-trade. We have perused the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
(supra)wherein it is held that,"disallowance u/s14A is applicable to the expenditure relating to exempt income from strategic 5 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 investment/ stock-in-trade and the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by the assessee may not be relevant and as such if expenditure is incurred for earning exempt income, then such expenditure which is attributable to the exempt income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business income."
8. Operative part of the judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
(supra) is extracted for ready perusal as under :-
"31) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument of counsel for the parties on both sides, in the light of various judgments which have been cited before us, some of which have already been taken note of above.
32) In the first instance, it needs to be recognised that as per section 14A(1) of the Act, deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act". Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that has to be disallowed. If an expenditure incurred has no causal connection with the exempted income, then such an expenditure would obviously be treated as not related to the income that is exempted from tax, and such expenditure would be allowed as business expenditure. To put it differently, such expenditure would then be considered as incurred in respect of other income which is to be treated as part of the total income.
33) There is no quarrel in assigning this meaning to section 14A of the Act. In fact, all the High Courts, whether it is the Delhi High Court on the one hand or the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the other hand, have agreed in providing this interpretation to section 14A of the Act. The entire dispute is as to what interpretation is to be given to the words 'in relation to' in the given scenario, viz. where the dividend income on the shares is earned, though the dominant purpose for subscribing in those shares of the investee company was not to earn dividend. We have two scenarios in these sets of appeals. In one group of cases the main purpose for investing in shares was to gain control over the investee company.
Other cases are those where the shares of investee company were held by the assessees as stock-in-trade (i.e. as a business activity) and not as investment to earn dividends. In this context, it is to be 6 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 examined as to whether the expenditure was incurred, in respective scenarios, in relation to the dividend income or not.
34) Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment. We are of the opinion that the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant. No doubt, the assessee like Maxopp Investment Limited may have made the investment in order to gain control of the investee company. However, that does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining the issue at hand. Fact remains that such dividend income is non-taxable. In this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word 'in relation to the income' that does not form part of total income. Considered in this hue, the principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play as that is the principle which is engrained in Section 14A of the Act. This is so held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd., relevant passage whereof is already reproduced above, for the sake of continuity of discussion, we would like to quote the following few lines therefrom.
"The next phrase is, "in relation to income which does not form part of total income under the Act". It means that if an income does not form part of total income, then the related expenditure is outside the ambit of the applicability of section 14A..
xxx xxx xxx The theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable has, in principle, been now widened under section 14 A."
35) The Delhi High Court, therefore, correctly observed that prior to introduction of Section 14A of the Act, the law was that when an assessee had a composite and indivisible business which had elements of both taxable and non-taxable income, the entire expenditure in respect of said business was deductible and, in such a case, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure relating to the non-taxable income did not apply. The principle of apportionment was made available only where the business was divisible. It is to find a cure to the aforesaid problem that the Legislature has not only inserted Section 14A by the Finance (Amendment) Act, 2001 but also made it retrospective, i.e., 1962 when the Income Tax Act itself came into force. The aforesaid intent was expressed loudly and clearly in the Memorandum 7 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001. We, thus, agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court, and are not inclined to accept the opinion of Punjab & Haryana High Court which went by dominant purpose theory. The aforesaid reasoning would be applicable in cases where shares are held as investment in the investee company, may be for the purpose of having controlling interest therein. On that reasoning, appeals of Maxopp Investment Limited as well as similar cases where shares were purchased by the assessees to have controlling interest in the investee companies have to fail and are, therefore, dismissed.
36) There is yet another aspect which still needs to be looked into. What happens when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade' and not as 'investment', particularly, by the banks? On this specific aspect, CBDT has issued circular No. 18/2015 dated November 02, 2015.
37) This Circular has already been reproduced in Para 19 above. This Circular takes note of the judgment of this Court in Nawanshahar case wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern are part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arises from such investments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the Circular contains the decision of the Board that no appeal would be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and if the appeals are already filed, they should be withdrawn. A reading of this circular would make it clear that the issue was as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head 'income from other sources' or it is to fall under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. The Board, going by the decision of this Court in Nawanshahar case, clarified that it has to be treated as income falling under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'. The Board also went to the extent of saying that this would not be limited only to co-operative societies/Banks claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.
38) From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn profit, then the same would be treated as trading profit and if the object is to derive income by way of dividend then the profit would be said to have accrued from investment. To this extent, the High Court may be correct. At the same time, we do not agree with the test of dominant intention applied by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which we have already discarded. In that event, the question is as to on what basis those cases are to be decided where the shares of other companies are purchased by the assessees as 'stock-in-trade' and not as 'investment'. We proceed to discuss this aspect hereinafter.
8 ITA No.6219/Del./201639) In those cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not concerned with those profits which would naturally be treated as 'income' under the head 'profits and gains from business and profession'. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10 (34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non- taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. case. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned.
40) We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT(A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT(A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion by affirming the view of the ITAT, though we are not subscribing to the theory of dominant intention applied by the High Court. It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', it becomes a business activity of the assessee to deal in those shares as a business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits. The situation here is, therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. where the assessee would continue to hold those shares as it wants to retain control over the investee company. In that case, whenever dividend is declared by the investee company that would necessarily be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone. Therefore, even at the time of investing into those shares, the assessee knows that it may generate dividend income as well and as and when such dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in- trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove.
41) Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before 9 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the AO was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the AO.
42) Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 2015 is filed by M/s. Avon Cycles Limited, Ludhiana, wherein the AO had invoked section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and apportioned the expenditure. The CIT(A) had set aside the disallowance, which view was upturned by the ITAT in the following words:
"...Admittedly the assessee had paid total interest of Rs.2.92 crores out of which interest paid on term loan raised for specific purpose totals to Rs.1.70 crores and balance interest paid by the assessee is Rs.1.21 crores. The funds utilized by the assessee being mixed funds and in view of the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules the disallowance is confirmed at Rs.10,49,851/-, we find no merit in the ad hoc disallowance made by the CIT (Appeals) at Rs.5,00,000/-. Consequently, ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is partly allowed and ground raised by the assessee in cross-objection is allowed..."
Taking note of the aforesaid finding of fact, the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:
"In the present case, after examining the balance-sheet of the assessee, a finding of fact has been recorded that the funds utilized by the assessee being mixed funds, therefore, the interest paid by the assessee is also an interest on the investments made. Such being a finding of fact, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court."
After going through the records and applying the principle of apportionment, which is held to be applicable in such cases, we do not find any merit in Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 2015, which is accordingly dismissed."
9. In view of what has been discussed above and following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
(supra), we are of the considered view that when assessee company 10 ITA No.6219/Del./2016 has admittedly earned the dividend income of Rs.1,79,87,005/- and has incurred administrative and operative expenses and share trading expenses to the tune of Rs.3,14,48,275/- as against the total trading of shares carried out during the year from which profits have been earned to the tune of Rs.2,39,19,454/-, apportionment of the expenditure qua strategic and non-strategic investment in shares has to be made and disallowance by way of applying Rule 8D (2)(iii) on the average value of stock-in-trade is not applicable. So, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and AO is directed to compute the disallowance by way of apportionment of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income by segregating the expenditure qua strategic and non-strategic investment in shares.
Order pronounced in open court on this 18th day of December, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KULDIP SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated the day 18th of December, 2020
TS
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A)-5, New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT
11 ITA No.6219/Del./2016
NEW DELHI.
Date of Dictation : 03.12.2020
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: 03.12.2020 Date on which the approved draft come to Sr.PS/PS :
Date on which fair order sent to Member for signature :
Date on which the fair order comes back after pronouncement to the Sr.PS/PS : Date on which order is uploaded :
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk :
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk....................................... The date on which the file goes to the AR for signature on the order............ Date of Despatch of the Order......................................................