2012 (6) TMI 409 - HC - Income Tax

Review petitions by the Revenue reopening concluded assessments dis allowance under Section14A Held that - If the Revenue s claim is allowed, then the prohibition under the proviso against the AO to revise concluded assessments for making disallowance under Section 14A can be neutralized and defeated by referring concluded assessments to the Commissioner for initiating suomoto revision power under Section 263 - as in the case of concluded assessments the proviso makes it clear that the assessee should not be subjected to disallowance either by reopening assessment under Section 147 or under Section 154 for raising demand of tax after disallowance or for withdrawing refund granted review petition dismissed against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of expenditure for earning exempt income.
2. Validity of Commissioner's power under Section 263 for revising concluded assessments under Section 14A.
3. Applicability of CBDT Circular No.11 of 2001 in prohibiting reopening of concluded assessments.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the disallowance of expenditure incurred for earning income exempt from tax. The provision disallows deductions for such expenses not forming part of the total income. The proviso to Section 14A restricts the Assessing Officer from revising concluded assessments under Sections 147 or 154 for making disallowances or raising demands related to such exempt income. The case involved a Banking Institution that had incurred expenses on interest for investments in tax-exempt securities. The Assessing Officer completed assessments without disallowances under Section 14A due to the proviso's prohibition against revising concluded assessments.

2. The issue of the Commissioner's power under Section 263 to revise concluded assessments under Section 14A was also examined. While the proviso to Section 14A bars the Assessing Officer from revising concluded assessments, it does not expressly restrict the Commissioner from invoking suo motu revisional powers under Section 263. In this case, the Commissioner set aside the assessments and directed reassessment for making disallowances under Section 14A. The Tribunal later held that disallowances cannot be made by reopening concluded assessments through the Commissioner's powers under Section 263. The Court analyzed the scope of the proviso to Section 14A and concluded that the Commissioner's revisional powers should not be used to achieve disallowances prohibited under the proviso.

3. The judgment also discussed the applicability of CBDT Circular No.11 of 2001, which restricts the reopening of concluded assessments. In a previous case, the Court had ruled that the Circular does not prevent the Commissioner from revising assessments under Section 263 for making disallowances under Section 14A when assessments are set aside and remanded for reconsideration. The Court differentiated the facts of the present case from the previous judgment, emphasizing that the proviso to Section 14A guarantees vested rights against reopening concluded assessments, whether by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 or the Commissioner under Section 263. The Court dismissed the review petitions, upholding the previous judgments and principles applied in interpreting Section 14A.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of Section 14A, the Commissioner's revisional powers, and the impact of the proviso on revising concluded assessments for disallowances related to exempt income.