Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 640 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - AO was of the view that some more expenditure has to be necessarily incurred for carrying out the activity of investment and to earn exempt income - AO therefore recorded his dissatisfaction with the correctness of the assessee s claim - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that during the year the assessee did not earn any exempt income. It is also not in dispute that the assessee on its own disallowed an amount suo-moto. AO says only that for carrying out the activity of investment and to earn exempt income, some more expenditure than what the assessee itself disallowed has to be necessarily incurred. This is only a surmise and guess not based on any cogent reason whereas the assessee explained that the suo-moto disallowance made by it is equivalent to salary of an official looking after the activity of investment etc. A bald satisfaction of the Ld. AO is not envisaged under section 14A(2) of the Act. He has to record his satisfaction over the assessee s claim having regard to the accounts of the assessee which has not been done. In such a case disallowance made by the Ld. AO is not sustainable as held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Keshav Power Ltd. 2018 (11) TMI 645 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Reliance Capital asset Management Ltd. 2017 (10) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - We, therefore hold that disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. The appeal of the assessee is decided in its favour.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D, the recording of mandatory dissatisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the nexus between interest bearing funds and investments, and the application of section 14A read with Rule 8D in the absence of tax-free income. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A with Rule 8D: The assessee had made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 6,14,286/- under section 14A, but the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 41,17,215/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO's dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim was not based on cogent reasons, as it was merely a surmise. The tribunal held that the AO failed to record mandatory dissatisfaction as required by section 14A(2) and did not provide a valid justification for the additional disallowance. Citing relevant case law, the tribunal concluded that the disallowance made by the AO was not sustainable and decided in favor of the assessee. Recording of Mandatory Dissatisfaction by the Assessing Officer: The Assessing Officer did not adequately record his dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance under section 14A. The tribunal emphasized that the AO must provide valid reasons for disagreeing with the assessee's disallowance, which was not done in this case. The tribunal highlighted that a mere surmise by the AO is insufficient to justify additional disallowances under section 14A, as it must be based on a thorough examination of the accounts. The failure to meet the statutory requirement led the tribunal to rule in favor of the assessee. Nexus Between Interest Bearing Funds and Investments: The assessee argued that there was no nexus between interest-bearing funds and investments appearing in the balance sheet, questioning the attribution of indirect interest expenses under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The tribunal considered this argument in conjunction with the absence of tax-free income during the relevant year. As no exempt income was earned, the tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D were inapplicable. This lack of connection between interest-bearing funds and investments further supported the tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's appeal. Application of Section 14A with Rule 8D in the Absence of Tax-Free Income: Given that the assessee did not earn any tax-free income during the relevant year, the tribunal found that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D could not be applied. The tribunal underscored the importance of a valid nexus between income and expenses when making disallowances under section 14A. As the AO failed to establish this connection and did not meet the statutory requirements for recording dissatisfaction, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. The absence of exempt income during the assessment year played a crucial role in the tribunal's decision to allow the appeal.
|