9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 214 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Mandation of receipt of exempt income received by the assessee - HELD THAT - We observe that there is no exempt income received by the assessee during the impugned AY. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D is not correct. It is a settled law that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made as there are Catena of judgements of Hon ble Tribunal that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A rwr 8D of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 68 - Share application money pending allotment - HELD THAT - Amount received in the previous year cannot be taxed in the current AY. Accordingly, the assessee gets relief. Further, on perusal of the above table, the assessee received ₹ 60 lakhs from the Yashoda Energy Pvt. Ltd. during the year and assessee has filed only confirmation letter indicating PAN with the address at Secunderabad, but, no other documents were filed. Whereas the CIT(A) has allowed the addition of ₹ 60,00,000/- without examining the issue in detail as per section 68 of the Act. The AR of the assessee also did not prove the genuineness of the transactions and credit-worthiness of the share applicant, namely, Yashoda Energy Pvt. Ltd. as per section 68 of the Act. The address provided by the assessee is vague as merely quoting the address as Secunderabad, how the department can trace the share applicant whereabouts. In view of the above observations, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim as per section 68 of the Act before the AO. Thus, the ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of disallowance made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ?3,65,55,496/-. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D: The Revenue raised grounds regarding the CIT(A)'s action in deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO observed that the assessee company had invested ?2,60,00,000/- in shares of Sea Gold Aqua Farms Ltd. and claimed an amount of ?2,24,40,645/- towards interest on Working Capital Loan. The AO accepted that no borrowed funds were utilized for the investments but still disallowed ?65,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Before the CIT(A), the assessee argued that no dividend income was earned on the investments, relying on the decision in Prathista Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance could be made under Section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that there was no exempt income received by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. It reiterated the settled law that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A, citing multiple judgments from the Hon’ble Tribunal. Thus, the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue were dismissed. 2. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 68: The AO noticed an increase in Share Capital by ?3 crores during the FY 2012-13 and Share application money pending allotment of ?5,05,61,141/- as on 31-03-2013. The assessee provided evidence for the increase in share capital and the list of investors. However, the AO found the evidence insufficient, particularly regarding the source and creditworthiness of the investors, except for Sri PRK Reddy. The AO treated ?3,65,55,496/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, citing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT. The AO concluded that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the funds. Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished details including PAN and details of creditors. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had accepted repayments to creditors during FY 2011-12 but added the balance amounts in FY 2012-13, which was illogical. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the creditors were genuine and existed in earlier years. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and material on record. It noted that the assessee received share application money of ?17,45,45,590/- and refunded ?17,10,64,188/- during the year, with an opening balance of ?4,70,79,739/-. The net amount received was ?5,05,61,141/-, out of which ?3,65,55,496/- was disputed. The Tribunal found the AO's addition of only the closing balance, rather than the entire receipt, improper. It provided relief to the assessee for parties where amounts were received in the previous year and noted that the AO accepted payments made to some parties. However, for Yashoda Energy Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination under Section 68. The assessee was directed to substantiate its claim. Conclusion: The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A and remitted the issue of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 for fresh examination regarding Yashoda Energy Pvt. Ltd.
|
