2015 (1) TMI 1297 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance made u/s 14A - Held that - The claim of the assessee is that the companies in which the investment have been made are subsidiary and Group companies. However we are of the view that the said claim requires verification at the end of the AO. Further we are of the view that the fresh contention put forth by the Ld A.R also needs to be examined at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance made under section 14A of the Act.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 81 days. The assessee requested the Bench to condone the delay, which was eventually allowed after considering the submissions made in the affidavit. The appeal was admitted for hearing despite the delay.

Issue 2: Disallowance made under section 14A of the Act
The primary issue in the appeal was the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The disallowance was related to 0.05% of the administrative expenses as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee initially did not make any disallowance under section 14A despite receiving a significant dividend income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee calculated a disallowance amount, which was not in accordance with Rule 8D. Consequently, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance as per Rule 8D, which was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

During the hearing, the assessee argued that the investments were mainly in subsidiary and group companies for strategic business purposes, not solely for earning dividend income. The assessee cited relevant case laws to support this argument. The Department, however, relied on the decision of the ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised the issue of strategic investments for the first time during the appeal. Considering the new contention and the supporting case laws, the Tribunal decided that the claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to re-examine the claim of the assessee and make a decision in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further examination and decision.