2019 (5) TMI 1315 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - non recording requisite satisfaction as to how the computations made by the assessee were not correct - HELD THAT - As relying on Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT and MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT AO, without having recorded requisite satisfaction as to how the computations made by the assessee were not correct, could not be clinched with the blanket jurisdiction to apply Rule 8D. Therefore, the additional disallowance made by Ld. AO could not be sustained under law. By deleting the additional disallowance of ₹ 6.80 Lacs, we allow the appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against disallowance u/s 14A for AY 2014-15 based on Rule 8D computation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 14A
The appeal contested the disallowance u/s 14A for AY 2014-15, where the assessee, a property developer, earned exempt income of &8377; 22.02 Lacs and offered a suo-moto disallowance of &8377; 1.93 Lacs. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed an additional disallowance of &8377; 6.80 Lacs u/r 8D(2)(iii) based on a formula. The first appellate authority upheld the AO's action but directed a correct computation. The assessee argued that the AO erred in applying Rule 8D without rejecting the suo-moto disallowance and without considering indirect expenditures. The AO's computations were deemed erroneous, including investments not yielding exempt income.

Issue 2: Application of Rule 8D
The Tribunal found that the AO disregarded the assessee's computations and proceeded to apply Rule 8D without recording satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee's disallowance. The Tribunal cited judgments emphasizing the need for the AO's satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the AO's actions were not in accordance with law as the disallowance made by the assessee was not appreciated, and Rule 8D could not be applied mechanically without considering the assessee's computations.

Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal cited judgments like Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Maxopp Investment Ltd., emphasizing the requirement for the AO to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. The judgments highlighted the importance of assessing the correctness of the assessee's claims and the need for a reasonable nexus between disallowed expenditures and income received. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's failure to record satisfaction on the assessee's computations rendered the additional disallowance unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal and deletion of the &8377; 6.80 Lacs disallowance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the AO's failure to record requisite satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee's computations invalidated the additional disallowance made under Rule 8D. By deleting the &8377; 6.80 Lacs disallowance, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of proper assessment and satisfaction before applying Rule 8D.