2018 (7) TMI 2141 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - adjustment of suo-moto disallowance - HELD THAT - The fact that the assessee claimed net expenditure of ₹ 12.16 Lacs during impugned AY remain undisputed. Against the same, the disallowance worked out by Ld. AO was ₹ 374.14 Lacs which was not, at all, justified. CIT(A) has restricted the same to ₹ 12.16 Lacs, which is fair logical. Upon perusal of Tribunal s order for AY 2008-09, we find that the suo-moto disallowance as made by the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal. Following the same, the matter for AYs 2009-10 2011-12 has been remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication in terms of ratio of Tribunal s decision for AY 2008-09. Upon due consideration of factual matrix, we see no reasons to interfere with the order of Ld. first appellate authority. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of Rule 8D for calculation of disallowance.
3. Applicability of Tribunal's decision on disallowance.

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the revenue for Assessment Year 2012-13 contested separate orders of the first appellate authority. Common issues and identical facts led to a common order for convenience. The primary matter of contention was the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

2. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance under section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated a substantial disallowance under Rule 8D, which was contested by the assessee. The disallowance was based on exempt income earned by the assessee, leading to a net disallowance added to the income under normal provisions and Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) provisions.

3. The assessee, being a resident corporate assessee engaged in investment business, had earned exempt income, triggering the disallowance under section 14A. The AO applied Rule 8D to calculate the disallowance, leading to a significant amount added to the assessee's income. The assessee made a suo-moto disallowance, which was adjusted against the total disallowance.

4. The assessee appealed the disallowance before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), where it was argued that the net expenditure was much lower than the disallowance calculated by the AO. The CIT(A) considered the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's case and restricted the disallowance amount, confirming a proportionate disallowance and deleting the excess amount.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing the contentions, found the assessee's claimed expenditure to be accurate and the AO's disallowance excessive. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the actual expenditure claimed by the assessee, following the Tribunal's precedent in earlier years.

6. In another appeal by the revenue for a different assessee, similar grounds were raised regarding the disallowance under section 14A. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance amount based on the Tribunal's earlier decisions. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision due to identical facts and reasoning.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals in both cases, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the disallowance under section 14A for the respective assessment years.