9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 298 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - Held that - the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs. 7,09,157, as dividend and no expenditure under section 14A was disallowed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also, without any basis, has taken 17% of the administrative expenditure without looking to the nature of expenditure debited in the Profit & Loss account. Looking to the fact that the assessee has not incurred any interest expenditure, the disallowance of Rs. 45,000 on account of other administrative expenditure seems to be reasonable. Consequently, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same are hereby upheld for the reason that, admittedly, the provisions of rule 8D are not applicable for the assessment year 2005-06 as held by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - Decided against Revenue. Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Held that - The assessee, before the Assessing Officer, contended that it has made investment of Rs. 5,00,000 only in Reliance Mutual Funds and the second investment of Rs. 5,00,000 has not been made by it. To clarify this contention, the assessee has filed the proof of investment made in the name of associate concern Brook Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. which had made the investment. Along with that a photocopy of cheque dated 1st March 2005, and the bank account was given before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), after verifying these details, has deleted the addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) having a co-terminus power with that of the Assessing Officer can very well examine these facts in the course of appellate proceedings. He has merely verified the assessee s contention from the copy of cheque and bank account along with the proof of investment in the name of Brook Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that there is a violation of rule 46A. Thus, under these facts, the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) are affirmed - Decided against Revenue. Commissioner (Appeals) and, accordingly, the same is confirmed - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: Assessment Year 2005-06: The Revenue challenged the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 45,000 against Rs. 2,09,132 made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had apportioned the expenses in the ratio of exempt income to total income, disallowing 17% of administrative expenses. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that some disallowance should be made for managerial and administrative expenses but found the AO's proportional disallowance without valid reason inappropriate. Thus, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 45,000. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the AO had no basis for the 17% figure and that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2005-06 as per the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT. Assessment Year 2006-07: For this year, the AO disallowed Rs. 17,88,312 under Section 14A by attributing 42% of various expenditures to exempt income. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000, reasoning that the AO's proportional basis was unjustified. The Tribunal agreed, noting that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2006-07 and that a reasonable basis for allocation was needed. The disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 was deemed reasonable given the nature of expenditures. 2. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act: Assessment Year 2005-06: The AO added Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69, noting that the assessee could not explain the investment in mutual funds. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted this addition after verifying that the investment was made by an associate concern, Brook Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., and not by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to verify facts and that there was no violation of Rule 46A. 3. Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules: Assessment Year 2005-06: The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal found no violation, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) merely verified the assessee's contention using documents that did not require further examination of facts. Conclusion: For both assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The disallowances under Section 14A were upheld as reasonable, and the addition under Section 69 was deleted based on verified evidence. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A in the proceedings. The orders were pronounced in the open Court on 6th September 2013.
|
