2017 (1) TMI 1217 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D - Held that - There is merit in the submissions of the assessee, as the propositions canvassed by the ld. AR for the assessee are supported by the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Daga Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., (2015 (1) TMI 1204 - ITAT MUMBAI ) and the facts relied on by him. Ld. AR has submitted that disallowance u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. Considering the factual position and the case law relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) should be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Assessment year 2009-2010 - Addition u/s.14A/Rule 8D (2) - Disallowance u/s 14A - Disallowance of ? 42,73,432 - Appeal against order of CIT(A) - Dispute over disallowance u/s 14A - Application of Rule 8D for disallowance calculation - Borrowed funds for investments - Exempt income and expenditure on interest - Disallowance exceeding exempt income - Interpretation of Rule 8D - ITAT Mumbai Bench judgment relevance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition u/s.14A/Rule 8D (2) - Disallowance u/s 14A
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-2010, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 14A/Rule 8D (2) amounting to ? 42,73,432. The dispute revolves around the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 153A and completed the assessment considering both regular books of account and seized documents. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, emphasizing the applicability of Rule 8D for disallowance calculation. The appellant's contention that no borrowed funds were invested for earning exempt income was dismissed. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's disallowance under Rule 8D, stating that the AO's action was justified in making the disallowance. The appellant further appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Dispute over disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D Calculation
The appellant contested the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the AO erred in considering additions/disallowances not based on seized documents and in indirectly relating excess interest expenditure to exempt income under Rule 8D(ii). The appellant claimed that the disallowance under Rule 8D should not exceed the exempt income. The appellant relied on a judgment from the ITAT Mumbai Bench in a similar case to support their argument. The ITAT Mumbai Bench's decision highlighted that disallowance under Rule 8D cannot surpass the exempt income, emphasizing the factual position and the absence of borrowed funds for investments in earning dividend income.

Issue 3: Application of Rule 8D and Borrowed Funds for Investments
The ITAT Kolkata analyzed the submissions of both parties and the judgment cited by the appellant. The Departmental Representative reiterated the AO's stance, supporting the disallowance. However, after considering the facts and legal precedents, the ITAT Kolkata agreed with the appellant's contentions. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's argument that disallowance under Rule 8D should not exceed the exempt income. Consequently, the ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on ground No.3, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

In conclusion, the ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of ensuring that disallowances under Rule 8D do not exceed the exempt income, as supported by legal precedents and factual evidence presented during the proceedings.