2015 (4) TMI 1176 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r 8D - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that - DR has not brought on record any evidence to show that expenditure was incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. Being so the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of sec.14A r.w.r. 8D for the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Accordingly this ground is dismissed. Deduction u/s.54F - Held that - There is no discussion by AO about the issue of investment in capital gains accounts scheme amounting to 6, 10, 000/- and 40, 00, 000/- and advance paid for the purchase of property. It means that the Assessing Officer has not given any comments regarding this issue. Being so in our opinion it is appropriate to remit this issue back to the Assessing Officer as there is violation of Rule 46A. Accordingly we remit the issues for fresh consideration with regard to investment in capital gains accounts scheme and the advance paid for the purchase of property back to the Assessing Officer as he has only considered the investment in flat Nos. 607 & 612 Altamount Road Cumballa Hills for which the assessee has already claimed deduction u/s.54F for assessment year 2008-09 and allowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2008- 09. Therefore the same cannot be considered once again in the assessment year 2008-09. This issue to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r 8D for expenditure incurred in relation to income not forming part of total income.
2. Deduction u/s.54F claimed by the assessee for the purchase of agricultural land.

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r 8D:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) order for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The primary contention was the deletion of disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r 8D made by the Assessing Officer regarding the expenditure incurred in connection with income not forming part of the total income under the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) had deleted the addition, stating that no expenditure was incurred towards earning exempt income, as the assessee had not claimed any expenditure, and sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. Consequently, the ground related to disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r 8D was dismissed.

Issue 2: Deduction u/s.54F for purchase of agricultural land:
Regarding the deduction u/s.54F claimed by the assessee for the purchase of agricultural land, the Assessing Officer initially disallowed the claim, contending that the assessee owned more than one residential property at the time of the transfer of capital assets. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), however, allowed the claim after considering the assessee's capital gains and the investments made. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's handling of the case, particularly related to the investment in capital gains accounts scheme and the advance paid for the purchase of property. As a result, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, citing a violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the investment in the capital gains accounts scheme and the advance paid for the purchase of property totaling &8377; 6,50,00,000, as the initial assessment did not adequately address these aspects. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed in one case and partly allowed for statistical purposes in the other.

---