9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 131 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 14A - non-recording of satisfaction by the AO - Held that - We order deletion of the additions made by the AO as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on the same grounds for the assessment year 2009-10 that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO u/s 14A(2) of the Act as to the incorrectness of the claim/explanation of the assessee as to the disallowance made by the assessee of expenditure of ₹ 2,50,000/- having incurred in relation to the earning of the exempt income, before invoking Section14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962 , excluding the suo motu disallowance of ₹ 2,50,000/- as voluntarily offered by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act which disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the tune of ₹ 2,50,000/- stood confirmed/sustained. We order accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of ?19,81,195/- Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A of ?19,81,195/-: The primary issue in this appeal concerns the disallowance of ?19,81,195/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee contended that the investments were made out of its own funds and not borrowed funds. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed ?2,50,000/- towards expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this contention, arguing that investment decisions require substantial market research and administrative efforts, which incur expenses. The AO applied Rule 8D to compute the disallowance, resulting in ?19,81,195/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], arguing that no fresh investments were made during the year, and the investments were made from the issue of preference shares, not borrowed funds. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that there is always an element of expenditure in earning dividend income, and the assessee had not provided a convincing basis for the ?2,50,000/- disallowance. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 14A(2). The Tribunal cited its own decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2009-10, where a similar disallowance was deleted due to the AO's failure to record satisfaction. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must demonstrate, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, how the suo motu disallowance of ?2,50,000/- was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the AO had mechanically applied Rule 8D without undertaking the necessary exercise to identify the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal also highlighted the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which lies on the person with special knowledge of the facts. The assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing a detailed reply, shifting the burden to the AO to demonstrate the incorrectness of the assessee's claim. The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not record the required satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, rendering the disallowance unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the disallowance of ?19,81,195/-, except for the ?2,50,000/- voluntarily disallowed by the assessee, which was sustained. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the disallowance of ?19,81,195/- under Section 14A, except for the ?2,50,000/- voluntarily disallowed by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of the AO recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D.
|
