2014 (2) TMI 1245 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Whether Tribunal was right in law in not deciding the matter and instead sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision? - Held that - Rule 8D formula could not be applied to the case which arose prior to the introduction of said rule. Nevertheless and more so, therefore, a need would arise to ascertain the disallowance of expenditure, if any, and if so, to what extent be made for the assessee to earn tax exempt income. Since this exercise was not done previously, the Tribunal was within its right to require the Assessing Officer to do so. It is true that in a given case the Tribunal could also either on the basis of the materials already on record or when need be, after calling remand report, itself undertakes such an exercise within the parameters of law. Nevertheless, even in the facts of the case, the Tribunal found it more appropriate and convenient to require the Assessing Officer to do so. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure for earning tax-free income under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of rule 8D for issues arising in Assessment Year 2006-07.
3. Interpretation of the proviso to rule 8A of the rules.
4. Retrospective application of rules based on judicial decisions.
5. Tribunal's authority to remand issues to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure for earning tax-free income under section 14A:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration instead of deciding on the disallowance of expenditure for earning tax-free income under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that no disallowance should have been made under section 14A based on the material on record. The Tribunal did not specifically direct the application of a particular rule but opted for a remand. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal was justified in requiring the Assessing Officer to determine the disallowance of expenditure, especially in light of the Bombay High Court's decision that the rule 8D formula could not be applied retrospectively.

Issue 2: Applicability of rule 8D for issues in Assessment Year 2006-07:
The Assessing Officer had initially applied rule 8D for the issues arising in Assessment Year 2006-07. However, the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for reconsideration did not explicitly mandate the application of a specific rule. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to remand the issue was within its rights, and no question of law arose from this decision.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the proviso to rule 8A of the rules:
The appellant argued that the proviso to rule 8A of the rules could not be applied retrospectively. The High Court did not delve into this argument specifically but focused on the broader issue of the Tribunal's authority to remand the matter for reconsideration.

Issue 4: Retrospective application of rules based on judicial decisions:
The appellant cited judicial decisions to support the argument that certain rules should not be applied retrospectively. However, the High Court primarily considered the Tribunal's decision to remand the issue rather than the retrospective application of rules in this case.

Issue 5: Tribunal's authority to remand issues to the Assessing Officer:
The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal had the discretion to require the Assessing Officer to determine the disallowance of expenditure for earning tax-exempt income. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was justified, especially in light of the Bombay High Court's decision regarding the retrospective application of the rule 8D formula. Ultimately, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise from the Tribunal's decision.