2020 (4) TMI 663 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT - AO in the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act has observed that the reasons for scrutiny is because of Large interest expenses relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A . So we note that the AO has taken the case of the assessee for scrutiny because of large interest expenses relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A. We find that the assessee has not claimed this interest other expenditure, which is discernible from Computation of total income of the assessee - As safely assumed that the assessee has not incurred any interest expenditure for earning the exempt income. AO has not disallowed any disallowance in this respect u/s.14Ar.w.r 8D of the Rules. AO observed that the assessee s case was selected for scrutiny for verification of large interest expenses relatable to exempt income and during the assessment proceedings when the assessee explained the aforesaid facts, the AO agreed with the assessee that it had not incurred any interest expenditure for earning the exempt income. AO has rightly not disallowed/made any disallowance/expenses especially the interest expenditure for earning any exempt income which is a plausible view. The order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act cannot be faulted with for non-invocation of section 14A/r.w.r 8D for such disallowance. Conditions precedent for invoking Rule 8D is that if the AO is not satisfied with the explanation of assessee in respect of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, then only the AO need to resort to Rule 8D, which is not the case here. Since the order of AO is not erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of Revenue, the conditions precedent for invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is absent. PCIT lacks jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act to interfere with the assessment order passed by AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without satisfying the condition precedent as laid down in the statute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Revisional Jurisdiction u/s. 263:
The main issue in this case was the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) based on the AO's failure to disallow interest expenses for earning exempt income u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The PCIT set aside the assessment order passed by the AO and directed a fresh assessment, citing the AO's failure to make proper enquiries regarding interest expenses. The appellant challenged this action, arguing that the AO had correctly accepted the income as per the return filed and had not incurred any interest expenditure for earning exempt income. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision was reasonable, as the appellant had not claimed any interest expenditure for earning exempt income, and the conditions for invoking Rule 8D were not met. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment order, and the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act was quashed.

2. Assessment Proceedings and Evidence Presented:
During the assessment proceedings, the AO had scrutinized the appellant's case due to large interest expenses related to exempt income u/s. 14A. The appellant provided details and evidence to substantiate that no interest or management expenditure had been incurred for earning dividend income, which was claimed as exempt income u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The AO accepted the appellant's explanation and did not make any disallowance, noting that the appellant had also submitted bank statements and necessary details. However, the PCIT intervened, stating that the AO had not verified the interest expenses related to exempt income for disallowance, leading to the direction for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence presented by the appellant during the revisional proceedings, found that the appellant had maintained separate Profit & Loss accounts for derivatives trading and other business activities, clearly showing the interest expenses incurred. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's decision not to disallow any expenses, especially interest expenditure for earning exempt income, was valid and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

3. Conclusion and Tribunal's Decision:
After analyzing the facts and submissions from both parties, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the PCIT's order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's decision not to disallow any expenses, including interest expenditure for earning exempt income, was based on a plausible view supported by the evidence presented by the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted that the conditions precedent for invoking Rule 8D were not met in this case, and therefore, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment order. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 18-03-2020, in favor of the assessee.