9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1479 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - basis of estimation of disallowance not accepted by AO - CIT held that if the AO was not satisfied with the method of disallowance u/s. 14A as done by the Assessee he has no other option but to resort to make disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D of the Rules - HELD THAT - If the AO comes to the conclusion that claim made by the assessee is not correct, it is only thereafter that the AO can proceed to make the disallowance in terms of Rule 8D of the Rules. Even in a case where the AO rejects the claim of the assessee that no expenses were incurred to earn the exempt income, it is not mandatory for him to invoke the method of calculation prescribed by Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and is free to make the disallowance on any reasonable basis By applying the Rule 8D of the Rules blindly sometimes absurd disallowances would result. Therefore while examining the claim of the assessee regarding expenditure incurred in earning the exempt income including a claim that no expenses were incurred, the AO is bound to take note of such absurdities and refrain from invoking the method of disallowance of expenses as prescribed by Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. It is for this reason that the satisfaction of the AO regarding expenses incurred for earning exempt income is to be objective satisfaction. It is only when no reasonable and proper parameters for making disallowance can be arrived at, that resort to Rule 8D(2) can be had by the AO. Rule 8D(2) will thus be a last resort when it becomes impossible to arrive at a just conclusion on the amount of expenses that has to be disallowed as attributable or incurred in earning exempt income. It cannot therefore be said that once the AO rejects the mode of computation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act as made by the Assessee, he has no other option but to resort to Rule 8D of the Rules. AO has adopted one of the possible course open to him in law. CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 just because he does not agree with the view of the AO. In other words u/s. 263 CIT cannot substitute his view with that of the AO. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Assessee clearly supports the stand taken by the Assessee in this regard. We therefore hold that the order of the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act ought not to have been invoked by the CIT. We therefore quash the order u/s. 263 of the Act and allow the appeal by the Assessee. Appeal by the Assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 of the Act to revise AO's order. 3. Applicability of Rule 8D for computing disallowance under Section 14A. 4. Validity of AO's estimation method for disallowance u/s. 14A. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 14A and Rule 8D The case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee had voluntarily disallowed a sum under Section 14A, but the Assessing Officer (AO) recalculated the disallowance based on his own estimation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) held that the AO should have applied Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules if he rejected the Assessee's estimation. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the AO has the discretion to make disallowances based on reasonable grounds without mandatorily resorting to Rule 8D. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO must objectively assess the claim made by the Assessee before applying Rule 8D as a last resort. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of CIT under Section 263 The Tribunal analyzed the jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the Act to revise the AO's order. It was held that the CIT cannot substitute his view for that of the AO solely based on a difference in opinion. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT's revisionary powers cannot be exercised merely due to a disagreement with the AO's decision, as long as the AO's decision is one of the possible courses available in law. The Tribunal cited relevant case law to support the Assessee's position that the CIT cannot interfere if the AO's order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest. Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 8D The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions, including those by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, to establish that Rule 8D applies only for specific assessment years. It was clarified that the AO must objectively assess the Assessee's claim regarding expenses incurred in earning exempt income before resorting to Rule 8D. The Tribunal highlighted that blindly applying Rule 8D could lead to absurd disallowances, and the AO should refrain from doing so if a reasonable basis for disallowance can be determined. Issue 4: Validity of AO's Estimation Method The Tribunal concluded that the AO's estimation method for disallowance under Section 14A was a valid course of action available to him. The Tribunal reiterated that the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 based solely on a difference in opinion with the AO. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263 and allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the AO's decision was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of Section 14A and Rule 8D, established the limits of the CIT's revisionary powers, and emphasized the importance of the AO's objective assessment before applying Rule 8D for computing disallowances.
|
