9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 721 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - AO had rejected the calculation of the assessee for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and calculated the said disallowance - AR argued that during the rejection of assessee s calculation related to disallowance u/s 14A AO had not recorded any satisfaction while passing the order - HELD THAT - The assessee earned exempt income during the relevant assessment year and also incurred interest expenditure that is not directly attributable to any specific income. In such circumstances disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be applicable. AO may invoke Rule 8D only upon recording dissatisfaction with the assessee s claim or explanation as mandated by Section 14A(2). DR has comprehensively discussed the issue the specific aspect of non-recording of satisfaction by the Ld. AO has not been addressed effectively. This issue is directly covered in the assessee s own case 2024 (6) TMI 1451 - ITAT MUMBAI which in turn is supported by the binding precedent laid down in PCIT-2 vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. 2019 (11) TMI 105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The impugned assessment order is set aside and the disallowance made under Section 14A is hereby deleted. Assessee appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue presented and considered in this judgment revolves around the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Specifically, the question is whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in making an additional disallowance of Rs. 19,82,368/- when the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 4,06,523/-. A critical sub-issue is whether the AO recorded sufficient satisfaction regarding the assessee's calculation before invoking Rule 8D. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, mandates the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income that does not form part of the total income under the Act. Rule 8D provides the method for determining the amount of expenditure to be disallowed. The legal framework requires the AO to be satisfied that the claim of the assessee regarding such expenditure is incorrect before applying Rule 8D. This satisfaction must be recorded in the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to a precedent set by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18, where it was held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. This principle was supported by the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT-2 vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of the AO's satisfaction as a pre-condition for applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order lacked a clear recording of satisfaction regarding the assessee's calculation of disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the statutory formula without recording such satisfaction was procedurally incorrect. Key evidence and findings: The AO's assessment order noted that the assessee had received substantial dividend income and made significant investments in unquoted equity instruments. The AO contended that the assessee's suo motu disallowance did not account for various direct and indirect costs associated with earning exempt income. However, the Tribunal observed that the AO did not explicitly record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal requirement that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. The absence of such satisfaction in the AO's order led the Tribunal to conclude that the additional disallowance was not justified. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the disallowance was substantively correct and that the AO followed the procedural mandate by examining the assessee's accounts. The Revenue also contended that legislative intent and judicial precedents supported the broad applicability of Section 14A. However, the Tribunal found that the specific issue of non-recording of satisfaction was not effectively addressed by the Revenue. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's failure to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim rendered the additional disallowance under Section 14A unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order and deleted the disallowance. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D was a procedural defect that invalidated the additional disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal's decision relied on the precedent set by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the assessee's own case and the binding precedent of the Bombay High Court in PCIT-2 vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. Core principles established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. This requirement is a sine qua non for the applicability of Rule 8D and ensures that disallowance is not made arbitrarily. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the impugned assessment order and deleting the additional disallowance of Rs. 19,82,368/- made under Section 14A. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance by the AO in recording satisfaction before making disallowances under Section 14A.
|
