2016 (11) TMI 1418 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that - Section 14A(3) of the Act specifically excludes applicability of section 14A(2) and shifts the burden entirely on Assessee to establish absence, if any, of expenditure disallowable under section 14A of the Act. Besides, Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962 has been enacted for such eventualities where it is not possible to allocate the indirect expenditure towards administration, etc. with any scientific accuracy. No logic in the arguments of the assessee in so far as disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned. However, in so far as disallowance of interest towards interest is concerned, we find that the averment made on behalf of the assessee that the own capital together with accumulated reserves are in excess of corresponding investment remains unrebutted. Therefore, in view of the long line of the judicial precedent on the issue, the disallowance towards proportionate interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not sustainable in the facts. As a result, order of the CIT(A) is partially allowed in terms of our observations noted above. Appeal of the assessee is party allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the appeal by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) regarding the disallowance of ?9,75,698 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee, an Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Company engaged in manufacturing, sales, and exports of Dyes, earned dividend income of ?41,21,853 claimed to be exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee holds investments worth ?23,62,86,676 and made a disallowance under Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Assessee argued that no investment was made out of borrowed funds, and the disallowance under section 14A was unjustified as no direct or indirect expenditure was incurred for earning the tax-free income. The Department contended that the assessee failed to show any expenditure attributable to tax-free income, justifying the disallowance under Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted the substantial investments held by the assessee and the admission of one director's involvement in investment administration. It was observed that ordinary expenses like DEMAT charges and senior management engagement are incurred in holding investments.

The Tribunal held that the argument of nil administrative expenditure for holding investments was not valid, as the Board and Senior Management's involvement indicated otherwise. The burden to establish the absence of disallowable expenditure under section 14A was on the Assessee as per section 14A(3) of the Act. While disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld, the disallowance towards proportionate interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deemed unsustainable due to the excess of own capital and accumulated reserves over corresponding investments. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partially allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was modified accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the disallowance under section 14A was partially justified based on the specific circumstances and financial position of the assessee, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.