2022 (12) TMI 538 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A in accordance with Rule 8D - Expenditure incurred on earning exempt income - HELD THAT - No disallowance of expenditure could be made by the AO in the case of the assessee u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year under reference, i.e., AY 2015-16. CIT(A) has placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT which is binding on all the tax authorities including the Tribunal. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reasons to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A). The ground raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16 - Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance with Rule 8D.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance with Rule 8D for AY 2015-16. The assessee did not appear during the hearing, and the ld. Sr. DR represented the Revenue. The ld. Sr. DR argued that the AO rightly made the disallowance as per Rule 8D, emphasizing that each assessment year is distinct. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition, stating that no exempt income was earned during the year. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that no disallowance could be made as no exempt income was earned, aligning with the principle of apportionment of expenses under Section 14A.

The ld. CIT(A) clarified that the appellant did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, as evidenced by the ITR showing zero dividend income and profit on the sale of investments. The ld. CIT(A) referred to the judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing the principle of apportionment of expenses under Section 14A. The ld. CIT(A) also cited the decision in CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT to support the deletion of the addition. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court and finding no valid reasons to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that no disallowance was warranted under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned during the relevant assessment year. The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s reliance on relevant judgments and the principle of apportionment of expenses to be sound, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.