2015 (6) TMI 1230 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Application of provisions 14A for computing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) - CIT (Appeals) who after considering the provisions of section 14A of the Act as well as section 57 directed AO to compute the quantum of deduction admissible to the assessee un/s 80P(2)(d) by taking into consideration only the expenses incurred by way of commission /remuneration paid to the banker or any other person for realizing such dividend and expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning of the dividend and interest income - assessee contended before the learned CIT (Appeals) that the provisions of section 14A of the Act could not be applied while computing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) - CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being not maintainable against the appeal effect order passed by the AO - HELD THAT - CIT (Appeals) has not issued any direction to the Assessing Officer for applying the provisions of section 14A - if the Assessing Officer has applied the provisions of section 14A of the Act as per the contention of the learned counsel for assessee it should be considered as appeal effect given in defiance of the order of the CIT (Appeals). Thus the appeal effect order passed by the Assessing Officer is appealable and appeal lies against his order before the learned CIT (Appeals). The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for assessee in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd . and in the case of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. 1992 (12) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT clearly support the contention of learned counsel for assessee. CIT (Appeals) was therefore not justified in holding that no appeal lies against the appeal effect order passed wrongly under section 250/154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The appeal effect order passed by the Assessing Officer in contravention of the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is appealable order and appeal lies against the order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT (Appeals). The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is thus set aside and consequently the matter in issue is restored to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) Panchkula with direction to redecide the appeal of the assessee on merits - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:

1. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 2,91,55,456/-.
2. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 1,18,81,092/-.
3. Applicability of section 14A of the Act while computing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
4. Maintainability of appeal against the appeal effect order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 2,91,55,456/-

The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d). The CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, restricting the deduction. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for determining the quantum of deduction available to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs. 1,18,81,092/-, assuming it to be the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning dividend and interest income. The CIT (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction by considering only the expenses incurred for realizing such income. The Assessing Officer, while giving appeal effect, applied the provisions of section 14A of the Act, leading to the assessee's appeal against this decision.

Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 1,18,81,092/-

The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) amounting to Rs. 1,18,81,092/-, based on the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning dividend and interest income. The CIT (Appeals) directed the computation of deduction by considering only specific expenses related to realizing such income. The Assessing Officer's application of section 14A of the Act while giving appeal effect led to the assessee's contention that such provisions should not be applied in computing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

Issue 3: Applicability of section 14A of the Act while computing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d)

The dispute arose when the Assessing Officer, while giving appeal effect, applied the provisions of section 14A of the Act in computing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The assessee argued that section 14A should not be applicable in this context. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that the right course for the assessee was to file a rectification application before the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's application of section 14A was in defiance of the CIT (Appeals) order, making the appeal against the appeal effect order maintainable.

Issue 4: Maintainability of appeal against the appeal effect order passed by the Assessing Officer

The dispute centered around the maintainability of the appeal against the appeal effect order passed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) initially dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not maintainable against the appeal effect order. However, the Tribunal held that the appeal against the Assessing Officer's order giving appeal effect was valid, especially when the order was passed in contravention of the CIT (Appeals) directive. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Appeals) order and directed a re-decision on the appeal, providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the relevant issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities.