2021 (11) TMI 743 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of provision for warranty - CIT(A) accepted the assessee s submissions and working as being correct and allowed the claim of the assessee - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that he has accepted the submissions of the assessee without actually examining the weight of the submissions of the assessee. CIT(A) has simply accepted the submissions provided by the assessee and after duly reproducing the submissions in the impugned order has noted that in view of the submissions made by the assessee and the case laws cited and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned disallowance is deleted. While making the deletion the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any reasoning as to why the submissions of the assessee were found to be satisfactory for the purpose of making provision of warranties. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue before him by examining the various details and documents submitted by the assessee and has simply accepted the contentions of the assessee without returning a finding on fact. In such a situation we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for considering the issue afresh and thereafter adjudicate on the issue by passing a speaking order after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly the Department succeeds on ground No.1 and the same stands allowed for statistical purpose. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - AO has simply applied the procedure prescribed in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to compute the amount disallowable u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating that in the present case no part of interest could have been said to have been incurred in relation to exempt income. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not pointed out even a single expenditure having been incurred by the assessee during the year which was having proximate nexus with the exempt dividend income earned during the year. Assessing Officer while computing the disallowance u/s 14A considered the entire investments whereas the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income and this can only be done by taking into consideration the investment which has given rise to the income which does not form part of the total income. CIT(A) has returned a categorical finding of fact on the issue and has computed the disallowance after excluding those investments which were not related to the earning of dividend income. Such is also the mandate in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT and plethora of other judgments. We also note that the assessee is not in appeal before this Tribunal against the amount of disallowance U/s 14A as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A)

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of provision for warranty
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Issue 1: Disallowance of Provision for Warranty

The case involved the Department appealing against the deletion of an addition of &8377; 4,69,39,754/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for warranty. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as the estimates made by the assessee were deemed unreliable. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the provision was made based on past trends and experience. However, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide a reasoned decision for accepting the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Regarding the disallowance under section 14A, the assessee had earned dividend income during the year and claimed exemption under sections 10(34) & 10(35) of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed a disallowance under Rule 8D at &8377; 2,73,665/-. The Ld. CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to &8377; 1,01,352/- based on the average value of investments. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not establish a direct nexus between the expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly computed the disallowance by excluding investments not related to the dividend income. As the assessee did not challenge the disallowance amount, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

In conclusion, the appeal of the Department was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal remanding the issue of provision for warranty back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh consideration and upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.