2022 (2) TMI 812 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses u/s.14A r.w.r.8D - HELD THAT - It is well established principle of law that if there is no exempt income for relevant assessment year then there cannot be any disallowances of expenses relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER In this case on perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer there is no observation with regard to exempt income earned for relevant assessment year. Even before the learned CIT(A) although the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) but the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeal filed by the assessee on technical grounds for non-prosecution of appeal without discussing issue of disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A of the Act. Therefore considering facts circumstances of this case we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue in light of our observations hereinabove. AO is directed to re-examine the issue in light of dividend income earned by the assessee for relevant assessment year to determine disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income. In case there is no exempt income for relevant assessment year then Assessing Officer is directed to delete additions made towards disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A - Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2012-13.

Analysis:
The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the Commissioner's decision. The first issue was the confirmation of the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 by the Commissioner, which the appellant argued was erroneous. The appellant contended that the Commissioner wrongly held that they did not make any personal attendance or submissions in support of their appeal, contrary to the facts. The appellant also disputed the Commissioner's view that they were dodging proceedings by taking adjournments without compliance, asserting that their Counsel had requested time for hearing.

Another issue raised was the invoking of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, which the Commissioner confirmed. The appellant argued that this confirmation was unjustified and lacked proper justification. They further contended that the Income-tax Officer had pre-judged the issue, leading to a biased assessment without appreciating the facts correctly.

The Commissioner's decision regarding the appellant's loan and investment in unquoted shares was also challenged. The appellant claimed that the amount borrowed was used for business activities, not for investing in shares as presumed by the Commissioner. They argued that there was no material to substantiate the investment in unquoted shares, and the addition made by the Commissioner was not in accordance with the law.

Additionally, the appellant disputed the Commissioner's findings on interest income, investments, and expenses related to exempt income. They argued that the confirmation of certain additions and disallowances was arbitrary, based on conjectures, and lacked valid materials. The appellant emphasized that the Commissioner failed to consider the funds flow statement, which could prove the correlation between bank account credits and share application money.

In the final decision, the Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the issue of disallowance of expenses related to exempt income in light of the dividend income earned by the appellant for the relevant assessment year. If there was no exempt income, the Assessing Officer was instructed to delete the additions made towards disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act. The appeal filed by the appellant was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.