2016 (3) TMI 1367 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - admission of additional ground - HELD THAT - Respectfully following the decision of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 2009 (2) TMI 240 - ITAT DELHI-B the additional ground raised by assessee is allowed. Accordingly it is held that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable in the case of assessee. Therefore the addition stands deleted. Provision for stock holding and other charges - HELD THAT - As submitted that the expenditure on this head of account was actually paid by the assessee but inadvertently shown it as provision. Ld. counsel further submitted that this expenditure has been allowed in earlier years. Ld. counsel further submitted that this expenditure should be allowed in terms of section 43B also. He further submitted that assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to explain the facts in this regard. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We are of the opinion that the facts in regard to this issue needs to be re-marshaled. We therefore restore this issue to the file of AO for deciding the issue de novo in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition under the head 'Provision for stock Holding charges.'

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
- The appellant challenged the disallowance of &8377; 58,11,413 under section 14A, arguing it should be only &8377; 23,31,454 based on special provisions for insurance businesses.
- The appellant cited the decision of ITAT Mumbai in a similar case, but the CIT(A) noted Rule 8D applied from AY 2008-09 and restricted the disallowance to &8377; 23,31,454.
- The appellant raised an additional ground citing various judgments to argue that Section 14A was not applicable to their case.
- Referring to the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in a similar case, the Tribunal observed that Section 44 overrides other provisions for insurance businesses, concluding that Section 14A was not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance of &8377; 23,31,454 was deleted.

Issue 2: Addition under the head 'Provision for stock Holding charges':
- The appellant debited &8377; 14,54,000 for provision for stock holding and other charges, claiming it was actually paid expenses related to its investment portfolio.
- The AO rejected the claim, stating it was a provision in the balance sheet and not allowable as per IT Act provisions, also linking it to exempted income under Section 14A and Rule 8D.
- The CIT(A) upheld the addition, prompting the appellant to argue that the expenses were actually paid and should be allowed under Section 43B.
- The Tribunal found the issue required further examination and remanded it to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appellant's appeal on the second issue for statistical purposes, remanding it for further assessment, while ruling in favor of the appellant on the first issue, deleting the disallowance under Section 14A.