2014 (9) TMI 1018 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - On a perusal of the Balance sheet filed by the assessee we notice that the assessee has got huge borrowals and own funds are very much less vis - vis borrowed funds. Hence the interest disallowance may also fall under Rule 8D(2)(i) of the Rules. We notice that the AO has chosen to make disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules. In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the view that this issue requires examination afresh. Hence we prefer to set aside all the matters to the file of AO. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore all the matters to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh in the light of discussions made supra and also by duly considering the information and explanations furnished by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. - Decided in favour for assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and failure to adjudicate certain grounds by the Ld CIT(A).

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 2,02,49,403 made by the AO under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee, engaged in trading shares and operating yarn looms, earned exempt dividend income and interest on PPF during the relevant year. The AO computed the disallowance under Rule 8D of IT Rules, resulting in a total disallowance of Rs. 2,02,49,403. The Ld CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, leading to the appeal before ITAT Mumbai.

Upon review, ITAT observed a flaw in the AO's computation method. The AO aggregated investments and stock in trade to find the average value of investments, which was incorrect. ITAT emphasized the need to differentiate between investment and stock in trade for disallowance computation under section 14A. Referring to previous judgments, ITAT highlighted the necessity to consider specific factors to determine the disallowance accurately.

ITAT found discrepancies in the interest expenditure calculation by the AO, noting that certain charges were not appropriately considered. Additionally, the balance sheet revealed a significant borrowing relative to own funds, suggesting a potential application of Rule 8D(2)(i) for interest disallowance. Consequently, ITAT set aside the Ld CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to re-examine the issue, considering all relevant information and explanations provided by the Assessee.

In conclusion, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded back to the assessing officer for a fresh examination in accordance with the discussions and legal provisions outlined in the judgment.