2020 (7) TMI 500 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - rectification of mistake u/s 154 - HELD THAT - AO has to examine correctness of the said suo-motu disallowance having regard to the books of account maintained by the assessee. If, the assessee neither makes any disallowance in the return of income nor furnishes the reason for doing so, the AO cannot be expected to record his satisfaction in vacuum. This, in our humble opinion, is the law propounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT . We find that in the instant case before us, no suo-motu disallowance was made by the assessee towards indirect expenses u/s.14A. We are afraid that if the stand of the assessee is to be accepted, then the very purpose of introduction of provisions of Section 14A would stand defeated. Hence, we dismiss this line of argument of recording of satisfaction by the assessee in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no direct expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income. Hence only the indirect / administrative expenses are to be considered for working out the disallowance. We find that the assessee had held investments to the tune of ₹ 66.92 crores as on 31.3.2008 and derived exempt income in the form of dividends during the Asst Year 2008-09 . Considering the intention behind introduction of provisions of section 14A of the Act, the law laid down in various supreme court decisions referred to supra , considering the fact that computation of disallowance of indirect expenses in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules resulting in absurdity in as much as majority of the expenses debited in the income and expenditure account getting disallowed thereon, considering the fact that substantial exempt income was derived by the assessee and considering the fact that definitely some time and energy would have been devoted by the assessee for monitoring the accounts tracking the investments and additionally incurring certain common indirect expenses , we hold that 25% of the aforesaid expenditure (i.e as per list above) to be attributable for the purpose of earning exempt income of the assessee which would meet the ends of justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. We hold that this decision would not fall as binding precedent for other cases due to its peculiar facts and circumstances.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules.
2. Validity of reopening assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Chargeability of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules:
The core issue in all appeals was whether the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was justified. The assessee, a Senior Advocate, had declared substantial exempt income but did not disallow any expenditure under Section 14A for earning such income. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially made an ad-hoc disallowance, which was later modified using Rule 8D(2) during rectification proceedings under Section 154. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, noting that the assessee did not comply with the opportunity given to explain the expenses related to exempt income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee argued that most dividends were credited directly to his bank account and that no expenses were incurred specifically for earning exempt income. However, the Tribunal found that some expenses, such as salary, traveling, and telephone expenses, could be related to earning the exempt income. The Tribunal held that 25% of these expenses should be disallowed under Section 14A, considering the substantial exempt income and the nature of the expenses.

2. Validity of reopening assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act:
For the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the AO reopened the assessments under Section 147 to make disallowances under Section 14A. The assessee challenged the reopening before the CIT(A), who upheld the AO's action. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not raise any grounds challenging the reopening before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the issue of reopening and proceeded to decide on the merits of the disallowance under Section 14A, applying the same rationale as for the assessment year 2008-09.

3. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not raise any grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 154 before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue. The Tribunal focused on the merits of the disallowance under Section 14A.

4. Chargeability of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal noted that the grounds related to the chargeability of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D were consequential and did not require specific adjudication.

5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal found that the grounds related to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were premature for adjudication at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the assessee by directing the AO to disallow 25% of the identified expenses related to earning exempt income under Section 14A for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case and was not intended to be a binding precedent for other cases. The issues related to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 154 and the validity of reopening assessments under Section 147 were not adjudicated as the assessee did not raise specific grounds before the Tribunal. The grounds related to the chargeability of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings were deemed consequential and premature, respectively.