Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 985 - ITAT DELHIValidity of assessment - requirements of eligible assessee as contemplated u/s. 144C(1) - Held that:- If an assessee does not fulfill the condition of eligible assessee then Draft Assessment Order is to be quashed. From the conditions, as contemplated under clause (15), it is evident from the use of word “and” that both the conditions have to be fulfilled. Admittedly, in the present case, no adjustment has been proposed by Id. TPO and, therefore, assessee did not fulfill the condition of eligible assessee as contemplated u/s. 144C(15)(b). Therefore, the draft assessment order is to be quashed. Further, we find from the directions of the Tribunal that the matter had been restored back only to the Assessing Officer on the issue relating to section 14A and, therefore, there was no requirement of making any reference to the TPO. In the second round of proceedings, the Assessing Officer was required to pass the assessment order within the limitation prescribed u/s. 153. On this count the contention of assessee is that Assessment Order should have been passed under section 153(2A). This plea cannot be accepted because Assessing Officer was only required to give effect to the finding and direction of Tribunal and, therefore could pass order at any time. Under such circumstances, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be barred by limitation and, accordingly, is to be upheld in the eyes of law. Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- We find that Assessing Officer has, inter alia, observed in paras 7.1 and 7.2 that in terms of the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] even in the remand proceedings the assessee failed to furnish any corroborative evidence to show how investments were made by it and through which funds. Therefore, in the absence of discharge of onus the expenditure had to be disallowed. From the above it is evident that proportionate disallowance is to be made for earning exempt income. We, accordingly confirm the findings of Assessing Officer.
|