2014 (7) TMI 763 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules Held that - The decision in M/s. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1), Mumbai 2014 (7) TMI 503 - ITAT MUMBAI followed - The AO has worked out the disallowance u/s 14A as per rule 8D after taking interest cost and administrative cost - the assessee s net worth and availability of funds is far more than investment which are capable of yielding exempt income - no interest cost should be attributed for working out the disallowance - If the assessee has huge funds which also consist of interest free funds, then resumption would be that investments have been made out of interest free funds, available with the assessee - interest cost cannot be made attributable - availability of interest free funds and investments which ore capable of yielding exempt income has not been examined properly either by the AO or by the CIT(A) Relying upon The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY - the AO is directed to re-examine the nexus of inter interest free funds and investment made Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Addition on the ground of mismatch of ITS details Held that - FAA has already given substantial relief to the assessee on production of confirmations - assessee had not produced any evidence from remaining two parties - no evidence has been filed assessee was aware of the mismatch from the date of assessment but till date it has not been reconcile the remaining two items - matter should not be sent back to the AO - Had the assessee produced the same kind of evidence, it would have definitely remitted back the matter for verification the order of the FAA is upheld Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Addition due to mismatch of ITS details.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 26,78,43,504/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 23,81,31,028/- and had disallowed expenses of Rs. 7,91,07,453/- under Section 14A. The AO applied the formula in Rule 8D and disallowed Rs. 26,78,43,504/-. The assessee argued that the provisions of Rule 8D should not apply as it was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of securities, treated as business activity, and had sufficient net worth to cover the investments yielding exempt income. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the AO's disallowance, stating that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D were applicable and that the assessee's net worth was more than the investments. The FAA also noted that the assessee had admitted the applicability of Section 14A by offering a disallowance of Rs. 7.91 crores in the return of income.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal referred to a similar issue in the earlier assessment year where it was held that if the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, it would be presumed that investments were made from those funds, and thus, no interest cost should be disallowed. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the nexus between interest-free funds and investments and to exclude interest cost if interest-free funds were more than the investments. The matter was restored to the AO for re-examination, and the assessee was directed to furnish a cash flow statement. Grounds no. 1-7 were decided in favor of the assessee, in part.

2. Addition due to mismatch of ITS details:
The AO added Rs. 1,14,954/- due to a mismatch in ITS details, as the assessee could not furnish confirmations from four parties. The FAA gave partial relief by deleting Rs. 3.03 lakhs and Rs. 14,011/- based on confirmations but upheld the remaining additions of Rs. 3,533/- and Rs. 1.11 lakhs due to lack of evidence. The assessee requested to send the matter back to the AO, but the Tribunal confirmed the FAA's order, stating that the assessee had ample time to reconcile the remaining items but failed to do so. Effective ground no. 2 (Ground No. 8) was decided against the assessee-company.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was remitted back to the AO for re-examination, while the addition due to mismatch of ITS details was upheld. The order was pronounced in the open court on 11th June 2014.