2012 (12) TMI 124 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made under sec. 14A of the Act - chain of Chinese food restaurants - assessee received dividend - it was submitted by the assessee that dividend income has been earned by it from mutual funds the investment Held that - Disallowance under sec. 14A can be made if the expenditure incurred has nexus with the exempt income. Since the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue relating to nexus between the expenditure incurred and exempt income earned, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to examine whether any administrative expenditure was incurred for earning the exempt income - Assessing Officer will provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Disallowance on ad hoc basis - AO during the course of assessment proceedings asked the details of packing material Held that - Complete details of expenditure were furnished before the AO and no defect has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer. No specific query regarding packing material expenses or other expenses has been raised by the AO. It is a settled law that ad hoc disallowance without pointing out any mistake is not justified addition deleted - appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition made under sec. 14A of the Act.
2. Disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/- made on an ad hoc basis.

Issue 1: Addition made under sec. 14A of the Act:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the addition made under sec. 14A of the Act concerning the disallowance of expenses related to earning dividend income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an amount under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, based on the decision of ITAT, Special Bench in a specific case. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that there was no justification for disallowance of interest expenses as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. However, the Commissioner upheld a portion of the expenditure disallowance. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not examined the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to re-examine the issue considering the specific circumstances of the case and the legal principles established.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/- made on an ad hoc basis:
The second issue pertains to the ad hoc disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the AO under sec. 69C of the Act due to the absence of quantitative details regarding packing material expenses. The assessee contended that complete details were provided, and no specific query was raised by the AO regarding this particular expense. The Commissioner upheld the disallowance citing the lack of quantitative details in the assessee's records. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not point out any specific mistake or deficiency in the details provided by the assessee. Following established legal principles, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and allowed the appeal by the Revenue for statistical purposes. The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a direct nexus between expenses and exempt income for disallowance under sec. 14A of the Act, and highlights the necessity of specific queries and justifications for ad hoc disallowances under relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.