2016 (3) TMI 1211 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A - Held that - The first argument of AR do not carry any force as the figures in the balance sheet suggest that the assessee had no surplus funds to make investment in mutual funds. The second argument of the learned AR that at the time of making investment there were little borrowings also do not hold ground as money has no colour and in a running business it rotates and balance in each account changes from day to day and furthermore the fact remains that it is a case of use of mixed funds for making investments therefore disallowance u/s 14A was warranted. However the last argument of learned AR that the disallowance be restricted to the amount of dividend is acceptable as the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 1204 - ITAT MUMBAI has held that the disallowance u/s 14 r. w Rule 8D cannot be exceed the exempt income. Thus we restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to 60016 only. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of interest under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of ?2,08,601 made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed ?3,05,694 as the assessee had invested in mutual funds and borrowed funds from banks and relatives, paying interest on them. The learned CIT(A) partially allowed relief to the assessee, restricting the disallowance to ?2,08,601. The assessee contended that they had sufficient funds in their capital accounts to justify the investments made. The learned AR presented the capital accounts of partners to support this claim. However, upon reviewing the balance sheet, it was found that significant funds were tied up in receivables, raising doubts about the availability of surplus funds. The argument that there were minimal borrowings at the time of investment was also dismissed as the use of mixed funds for investments was evident, justifying the disallowance under section 14A.

The learned AR also referred to an ITAT order restricting the disallowance under section 14A to the amount of dividend income received. The learned DR argued against this, stating that the disallowance should not be limited to dividend income only. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have surplus funds for investments and had used mixed funds. While agreeing with the disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to ?60,016, in line with the ITAT order cited by the learned AR. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed, and the disallowance under section 14A was limited to ?60,016, based on the dividend income received.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance under section 14A but restricted it to the amount of dividend income, following the precedent set by a previous ITAT order. The arguments regarding the availability of surplus funds and minimal borrowings at the time of investment were considered, leading to the decision to limit the disallowance. The appeal was partly allowed, and the disallowance was restricted to ?60,016, aligning with the principles established in the referenced ITAT order.