2016 (12) TMI 864 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s. 14A - Held that - We find that disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act of ₹ 14,56,385/- was against ₹ 50,400/- computed by the assessee as expenses related to earning of income on which tax is not payable in the eyes of law. We further find that disallowance out of expenses incurred by the assessee in the course of his practice as a Senior Advocate is not sustainable as at no stage it has been said that the authorities found any dissatisfaction as regards the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of above, no disallowance under section 14A is sustainable in the eyes of law. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Sustainability of disallowance out of expenses incurred by the assessee.
3. Application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for computing disallowance.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act

The case involved an appeal against the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, where the Assessing Officer determined an expenditure of ?14,56,385 attributable to earning exempt income and added it back to the assessee's income. The assessee contended that only ?50,400 should be disallowed as non-deductible expenditure. The Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, as no dissatisfaction was found regarding the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set in CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., where it was held that the AO should follow the prescribed method only when not satisfied with the assessee's claim. Thus, the disallowance under section 14A was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 2: Sustainability of disallowance out of expenses incurred by the assessee

The Assessing Officer disallowed ?14,56,385 as expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to earning exempt income, based on the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the Tribunal found that the disallowance out of expenses incurred by the assessee, a Senior Advocate, was not sustainable as there was no indication of dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the disallowance was made on subjective and presumed facts contrary to the realities of the case, leading to a hypothetical disallowance which needed to be deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the sustainability of the disallowance.

Issue 3: Application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for computing disallowance

The Tribunal analyzed the application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in computing the disallowance under section 14A. Referring to the case law precedent of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tribunal emphasized that the AO should follow the prescribed method only when not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld that the self or voluntary deductions made by the assessee were not rejected as unsatisfactory, and the Rule specifically prescribed the mode and method for computing the disallowance under section 14A. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was deleted, and the issue raised by the assessee was allowed based on the precedent and the provisions of Rule 8D.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act and emphasizing the importance of following prescribed methods when determining such disallowances.