2012 (11) TMI 183 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Demand raised - CIT(A) rejecting the Petitioner s application for stay of demand - Held that - As the officers are bound to apply Rule 8D for the purposes of arriving at expenditure to be disallowed u/s 14A . Therefore, no fault could be found with the order passed by the Authorities. As very fairly stated that the department will not commence any recovery proceedings against the Petitioner in respect of the present demand till the disposal of its appeal by the ITAT it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to pursue its remedy of appeal before the ITAT.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of stay of demand pending appeal; Application of Section 14A of Income Tax Act; Jurisdiction of High Court to quash orders of lower authorities.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private trust, challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting its application for stay of demand pending appeal against the assessment order. The dispute arose from the disallowance of Rs.1.98 crores as expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a tax demand of Rs.86.97 lacs. The petitioner contended that the disallowance was arbitrary and unjust as the expenditure was not actually incurred. The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention to quash the orders of the lower authorities.

The petitioner argued that the blind application of Section 14A along with Rule 8D led to an unjust outcome, as it disallowed expenditure exceeding the total expenditure incurred by the assessee. The petitioner emphasized that such an approach was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged the court to exercise its writ jurisdiction and set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer.

On the other hand, the Respondent supported the orders of the lower authorities, asserting that they were bound to apply Rule 8D for disallowing expenditure under Section 14A. The Respondent highlighted that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was already in progress. The Respondent assured that no recovery proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner until the Tribunal's decision.

Ultimately, the High Court decided not to intervene, considering the pending appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court accepted the Respondent's statement and disposed of the petition without any order as to costs. The High Court refrained from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter, allowing the petitioner to pursue its remedy through the appellate process.