2016 (12) TMI 47 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - Assessing Officer has not furnished any reasons for rejecting the suo motu disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- computed by the assessee before invoking the formula contained in Rule 8D(2)(iii) to compute the disallowance. Notably, the phraseology of Sec. 14A(2) of the Act itself shows that the computation of disallowance prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules can be resorted to if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim made by assessee. In the present case, there is no satisfaction arrived at by the Assessing Officer. Be that as it may, following the ratio of our coordinate Bench in the case of Devkant Synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (11) TMI 1067 - ITAT MUMBAI) the disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act is restricted to 5% of the exempt income. The Assessing Officer is directed to retain the addition to the extent of 5% of exempt income after allowing credit for the suo motu disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- already made by the assessee. Thus, on this aspect, assessee partly succeeds.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance under Sec. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the assessee challenges the disallowance of &8377; 31,68,225 made under Sec. 14A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
2. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance based on Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, resulting in a total disallowance of &8377; 32,18,225.
3. The assessee contended that no interest expenditure should be disallowed as the share capital and reserves exceeded the investments, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd.
4. The assessee argued that investments in stock-in-trade should be excluded while calculating the disallowance under Sec. 14A.
5. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, supported the lower authorities' orders.
6. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and found that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified as the share capital and reserves exceeded the investments, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
7. Regarding the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons for rejecting the assessee's suo motu disallowance of &8377; 50,000 before applying Rule 8D(2)(iii). The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5% of the exempt income, as per the precedent set by a coordinate Bench.
8. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to retain the addition to the extent of 5% of the exempt income after considering the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the parties, the application of relevant legal principles, and the Tribunal's decision on the issues raised regarding the disallowance under Sec. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.