9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1122 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 263 - Held that - As per section 263 - The two conditions for invoking power under this section must be fulfilled - From the assessment order itself it is evident that the AO had in fact applied his mind and duly understood the facts of the case as well as the law applicable - AO has also made sufficient inquiry - On these two counts, it is not an erroneous assessment order. The next step is to ascertain whether some prejudice was caused to the interest of the Revenue - According to law, an erroneous order is an order which suffers from a patent lack of understanding of facts as well as law - While attracting the provisions of Section 14A, it is necessary to examine whether there was a proximity cause for disallowance which is its relationship with exempted income - Following Gillete Group India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (6) TMI 406 - ITAT DELHI - A disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the expenditure actually claimed by the assessee - The learned Commissioner was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of IT Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act. 2. Erroneous and prejudicial assessment order. 3. Cancellation of the assessment order and direction for fresh assessment. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act: The appellant challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the learned CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, arguing that the mandatory conditions for such jurisdiction were absent, making the order bad in law. The assessment order dated 24.12.2010 was deemed erroneous by the CIT, primarily due to the incorrect computation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The CIT noted that the disallowance related to earning exempt income should have been Rs.326.99 lakhs instead of the restricted Rs.6.09 lakhs. The CIT held that the AO's restriction of disallowance to actual expenses debited in the P&L account was against the provisions of law. The CIT concluded that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, thus justifying the invocation of Section 263. 2. Erroneous and Prejudicial Assessment Order: The CIT argued that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue because the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was incorrectly restricted to the actual administrative expenses of Rs.6.09 lakhs, instead of the computed Rs.326.99 lakhs. The CIT emphasized that neither the Act nor the Rule mandated restricting the disallowance to actual expenses incurred. The AO's departure from the clear provisions of law rendered the order unsustainable. The appellant contended that the AO had correctly computed the disallowance as per Section 14A and Rule 8D, considering the total expenses debited to the P&L account. The appellant relied on the case of Gillete Group India Pvt. Ltd., asserting that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the actual expenses claimed. 3. Cancellation of the Assessment Order and Direction for Fresh Assessment: The CIT canceled the assessment order dated 24.12.2010 and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. The appellant challenged this direction, arguing that the AO had duly considered the factual position and the provisions of law while making the disallowance under Section 14A. The appellant maintained that the AO had correctly restricted the disallowance to the actual expenses debited to the P&L account. The Tribunal noted that the AO had applied his mind, understood the facts, and made sufficient inquiry, thus the assessment order was not erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that disallowance under Section 14A requires finding the incurring of expenditure for earning exempt income. The Tribunal referred to the case of Gillete Group India, which held that disallowance cannot exceed the expenditure actually claimed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 and quashed the impugned order. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the AO had correctly computed the disallowance under Section 14A, considering the actual expenses debited to the P&L account. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order passed under Section 263 and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
|
