2021 (2) TMI 1296 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - whether the investment is yielding taxable income exempt income or no income and that the satisfaction regarding the incorrect amount disallowed by the assessee was not recorded by the AO? - HELD THAT - In view of the admitted position that the facts and circumstances involved for this year are identical to ones involved in assessment years 2009-10 2010-11 and 2011-12 in which the issue was restored to the file of AO to take a fresh view in the light of directions given 2014 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT DELHI for assessment year 2009-10 we are of the considered opinion that the request of the assessee can be accepted. We accordingly while setting aside the impugned findings of the authorities below restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same in the light of the view to be taken for earlier assessment years. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of payments made to director
2. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in Technical and Management Consultancy, challenged the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14, which determined the income and made additions on account of disallowance of payments made to the director. The appellant filed the return of income declaring Rs.29,96,84,870, but the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer determined the income at Rs.33,09,42,326, with additions of Rs.2,22,74,011 and Rs.89,83,445 under section 14 of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules.

2. The appellant contended that the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable, as the authorities failed to analyze the nature of the investment in terms of yielding taxable, exempt, or no income. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction regarding the incorrect amount disallowed. The appellant highlighted that the issues for this year were similar to those for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, where a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

3. The Tribunal, considering the identical nature of the issues for the current year and the previous assessment years, decided to accept the appellant's request. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the lower authorities and restored the issue of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in line with the approach taken for the earlier assessment years. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of proper analysis and satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in cases of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, ensuring a consistent approach with earlier assessment years for similar issues.