2016 (5) TMI 1362 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under section 14A - Held that - We set aside the orders of authorities below and restore matter in issue to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to re-decide this issue in the light of submissions of the assessee in the light of decision in the case of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. 2015 (2) TMI 672 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein held Section 14A of the Act requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction that interest bearing funds have been used to earn tax free income. The satisfaction to be recorded must be based upon credible and relevant evidence. The onus therefore to prove that interest bearing funds were used lies squarely on the shoulders of the revenue. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging disallowance under section 14A applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Analysis:

1. Factual Background:
- The assessee appealed against orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Chandigarh for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, contesting disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A using Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.

2. Contentions of Parties:
- Both parties argued that the issue was the same for both assessment years.
- The assessee claimed that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income and that Rule 8D was applied mechanically by the Assessing Officer.

3. Decision of the Tribunal:
- The Tribunal examined the facts from the assessment year 2010-11 for both appeals.
- The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer must determine the expenditure related to exempt income as per Rule 8D if not satisfied with the assessee's claim.
- The assessee failed to provide evidence to support the claim that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income.
- The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ground, stating a commonality of funds and management between business and investment activities.

4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
- The assessee cited the case of Deepak Mittal to support their argument.
- The Tribunal referred to the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. where it was held that disallowance under section 14A requires proof of using interest-bearing funds for tax-exempt income.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction based on credible evidence to disallow claims under section 14A.

5. Tribunal's Decision and Directions:
- The Tribunal found that no tangible material proved the use of interest-bearing funds, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities.
- Citing the case of Kapsons Associates, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in light of the submissions and judicial precedents.
- The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

6. Final Outcome:
- The appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes.
- Similarly, for the assessment year 2011-12, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents emphasized the importance of providing evidence and recording satisfaction for disallowances under section 14A. The decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration highlighted the need for a thorough examination of the facts and compliance with legal requirements in such cases.