2015 (1) TMI 151 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A investment in shares out of interest free funds - Held that - even while applying Rule 8D, the AO should have taken into consideration, the explanation of the assessee of having made the investment in equity shares out of interest free funds because if the investment in shares is found to be made by the assessee out of its own funds or interest free funds, the disallowance u/s 14A to that extent cannot be made even as per the method prescribed in Rule 8D - Since the investment in the shares to the extent of ₹ 30.22 crores was made by the assessee out of interest free funds, such as share application money received form VTCL and unsecured loan received from Shri V. Mahindra, the ordero of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A is upheld to the extent it was relatable to the investment of ₹ 30.22 crores made in the shares of HHEL Decided against revenue. Sundry balances written off Held that - The disallowance on account of sundry balances written off was made by the AO on the basis that the relevant details and documents showing the deduction claimed to be made by Discoms on account of penalty for late delivery, were not furnished by the assessee and also relying on Explanation to S.37(1) of the Act - the assessee furnished such details and documents before the CIT(A) - But on verification of the details and documents, the AO found that the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of late delivery charges was established only to the extent of ₹ 1,78,62,107 - As regards the balance amount of ₹ 51,79,590, the required details and documents, however, were not furnished to substantiate its claim, as specifically noted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report - CIT(A) should not have deleted the entire disallowance made by the AO on account of sundry balances written off - the onus is on the assessee to establish its claim for the deduction made by the Discoms on account of late delivery charges, even for the balance amount of ₹ 51,79,590 thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO to file the relevant details and documents to substantiate its claim for deduction on account of late delivery charges claimed to be levied by Discoms to the extent of balance amount of ₹ 51,79,590 Decided partly in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to relief given on disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.
2. Dispute over disallowance on sundry balances written off.

Issue 1: Challenge to relief given on disallowance under Section 14A of the Act

The appeal by the Revenue contested the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act. The case involved an assessee company engaged in manufacturing and sale of electrical products. The Assessing Officer noted the investment of Rs. 32.62 crores in equity shares of a company whose income was exempt from tax. Additionally, a significant expenditure was claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, making a disallowance of Rs. 67,23,310 under Section 14A. The assessee challenged this disallowance before the CIT(A), providing explanations on the source of funds for investments. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that certain funds were interest-free, thus limiting the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that investments made from interest-free funds were not subject to disallowance under Section 14A.

Issue 2: Dispute over disallowance on sundry balances written off

The second issue involved the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer regarding sundry balances written off by the assessee. The disallowance was based on the lack of details and documents provided by the assessee to substantiate the deductions made by Distribution Companies (Discoms) due to delayed supply of transformers. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, citing the nature of the deductions and non-submission of adequate documentation. The assessee contested this disallowance before the CIT(A), providing additional details and documents. The CIT(A) deleted the entire disallowance, stating that the delay in delivery did not constitute a legal infraction and that the claim was acceptable. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that while some deductions were substantiated, the balance amount lacked evidence. As a result, the Tribunal directed the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further verification and consideration, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide necessary details to support the claim for deduction on sundry balances written off.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the relief on disallowance under Section 14A while directing a reevaluation of the disallowance on sundry balances written off.