9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1162 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - disallowance of expenses incurred on earning tax-exempt income - change in method of calculation - suo-moto disallowance made by assessee - HELD THAT - Section 14A would be applicable on the dividend income, earned by the assessee which is exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee supplied the list of expenses for calculating the expenses related u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee itself had calculated amount and offered for tax during filing of return. The ld. AO is not expected to raise more queries, if the ld. AO is satisfied about the admissibility of claim on the basis of the material and the details supplied. So, assessment order cannot be called erroneous and the application of Section 263 is not justified. The respectful reliance is placed Moil Ltd ( 2017 (5) TMI 258 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - PCIT has calculated the amount of Rs. 67,12,410/- u/s 14A. The assessee had declared the amount of Rs. 14,85,815/-. So, balance amount of Rs. 52,26,505/- is escaped income which is caused the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the ld. AO adopted one of the possible views, his order does not suffer from any error. Therefore, in view of the aforestated essence of precedents on the issue of revision under s. 263, the twin conditions - the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, do not co-exist in this case.The same view was taken by the Coordinate Bench at Jodhpur in the case of Chhita Singh Shekhawat 2015 (10) TMI 305 - ITAT JODHPUR - PCIT has not rejected the method of calculation of 14A of assessee which is accepted by the ld. AO. Mere change in method of calculation the Section 263 cannot be invoked. We dismiss the impugned revisional order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The ground of the assessee is succeeded. Issues Involved: Validity of Order u/s 263, Grounds on Merits, Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. Validity of Order u/s 263: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked section 263 to set aside the assessment order dated 5 March 2021, passed u/s 143(3), due to insufficient inquiries regarding the computation of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. The PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because the disallowance under section 14A was not computed as per Rule 8D. The PCIT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct further inquiries and verification in respect of the disallowance u/s 14A and compute it as per Rule 8D. The assessee argued that the case was selected for scrutiny specifically to verify the expenses debited to the profit and loss account for earning exempt income and that the suo moto disallowance of Rs. 14,85,415 made by the appellant was reasonable. Grounds on Merits: The assessee contended that no direct expenses were incurred for earning exempt income other than demat charges of Rs. 1,280, which were already considered for computing the disallowance in the return of income. The assessee also highlighted that the majority of investments were long-term legacy investments in group companies, which did not require day-to-day monitoring, and hence, no significant expenditure was incurred on such investments. The assessee further argued that the disallowance under section 14A as per Rule 8D would result in the disallowance of the entire expenses claimed in the return of income, thereby not allowing any expense for earning taxable income. Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D: The PCIT computed the disallowable amount u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to be Rs. 67,12,410, whereas the assessee had disallowed Rs. 14,85,415 in the computation, resulting in a short disallowance of Rs. 52,26,595. The PCIT issued a show cause notice u/s 263, and despite the assessee's submissions, passed an order u/s 263, setting aside the assessment order. The assessee argued that the suo moto disallowance made was reasonable and that the AO had accepted the computation during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers [2010] 326 ITR 1 (SC), which held that for an expenditure to be disallowed u/s 14A, there must be a proximate cause for disallowance, which is its relationship with the earning of exempt income. Judgment: The ITAT held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's computation of disallowance u/s 14A. The ITAT noted that the AO is not expected to raise more queries if satisfied with the admissibility of the claim based on the material and details supplied. The ITAT relied on various judgments, including Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog P. Ltd. vs. PCIT and Moil Ltd. vs. CIT-1, which emphasized that an order cannot be termed erroneous simply because the PCIT does not agree with the AO's view if the AO has adopted one of the possible views. The ITAT concluded that the twin conditions for invoking section 263, i.e., the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, did not co-exist in this case. Therefore, the ITAT quashed the PCIT's order passed u/s 263 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the PCIT's invocation of section 263 was not justified. Order pronounced on 05.01.2024 at Amritsar, Punjab in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
|
