2012 (10) TMI 712 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Not been doing any business activity - Held that - Assessee except reiterating his stand, could not demonstrate how the rental income, interest income or dividend income of the assessee is to be assessed as a business income. All the incomes resulted to it are incidental income of its past investment or a rental income. The assessee failed to file computation of income in respect to AY 2008-09 in order to indicate the business income shown by him - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of business loss claimed by the assessee
- Confirmation of levy of interest u/s 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act

Analysis:
- The appellant appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of a business loss and the levy of interest under various sections of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant argued that the disallowance was unjust as it claimed a business loss of Rs.10,67,545, but Ld. CIT(A) only allowed Rs.10,58,127 of the total loss. Additionally, the appellant contested the levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D.

- The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in investment, finance, and trading activities, claimed a business loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating that the company had not conducted any business activity. The appellant's representative argued that the company had earned income from various sources during the relevant accounting year, including interest, dividend, capital gains, and rental income. Despite not showing a profit, the appellant contended that being in business warranted the allowance of business losses.

- The Assessing Officer noted the appellant's sources of income, which included rental income, interest income, dividend income, and capital gains. Upon analysis, it was concluded that the appellant did not engage in organized business activities, and the income earned was incidental to past investments or rental income. The appellant's representative failed to demonstrate how the various income sources could be classified as business income. Referring to a previous assessment order, the appellant's claim of business income was not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of evidence supporting active business operations.

- The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence establishing the appellant's engagement in business activities during the assessment year. Despite the appellant's arguments and the previous assessment order, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, thereby confirming the disallowance of the claimed business loss and the levy of interest under the specified sections of the Income Tax Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed in the case and the reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal.