2020 (8) TMI 885 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D - disallowance made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D to be confined to 3rd limb of Rule 8D alone and deleting the disallowance pertaining to 2nd limb of Rule 8D - HELD THAT - We find that there are two facets to the discussion made by the Tribunal as of which is that the assessee has not filed an appeal as against the confirmation of disallowance under Section 14(A) at R.39,70,832/-. This is a statement of fact. The second facet of the finding is with regard to the Revenue's contention that CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to only ₹ 39,70,832/-. Tribunal considered the factual position and earlier order passed by the Tribunal in the assesse's own case and held that the Revenue has not been able to point out any error in restricting the disallowance under Section 14(A) to ₹ 39,70,832/- being 0.5% of the average value of the investment. Thus, we find that the Tribunal has given a finding as to why it does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). In our considered view, the entire issue involved is fully factual and reasonableness of the expenditure incurred has been computed by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal after considering the merits of the matter.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D - Confined to 3rd limb of Rule 8D alone and deleting disallowance pertaining to 2nd limb of Rule 8D.
2. Consideration of legal aspect regarding interest expenses debited in books of account and usage of own and borrowed funds.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D
The appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was whether the Tribunal erred by restricting the disallowance to the 3rd limb of Rule 8D only and deleting the disallowance related to the 2nd limb of Rule 8D. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had limited the disallowance to a lesser amount compared to what the Revenue sought, and the Tribunal's order did not adequately address this issue.

Issue 2: Consideration of Legal Aspect on Interest Expenses
The second issue raised was whether the Tribunal overlooked the legal aspect that the assessee had debited interest expenses in the books of account while utilizing both own and borrowed funds. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order lacked a detailed discussion on this matter and merely dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the absence of an appeal from the assessee against the confirmed disallowance under Section 14A at a specific amount.

Analysis:
The High Court thoroughly analyzed the contentions presented by both parties. It noted that the Tribunal's order, although appearing cryptic at first glance, did address the concerns raised by the Revenue regarding the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal considered the factual position and the previous order in the assessee's case, ultimately finding no error in restricting the disallowance to a specific amount based on the average value of the investment. The Court concluded that the Tribunal provided a reasoned explanation for not interfering with the CIT(A)'s order, as the expenditure's reasonableness had been assessed and confirmed after due consideration of the merits. Consequently, the Court found no substantial questions of law warranting consideration in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly, without costs.