2015 (10) TMI 736 - AT - Income Tax

Addition U/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - There is a categorical finding by CIT(A) that investment in share was made prior to procurement of loan and security deposit given to East Commercial Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 11.9 crores. According to CIT(A), the entire loan has a direct nexus with the taxable income and he also noted that assessee does have sufficient funds for investment and loan amount have not been invested in the investment i.e. purchase of share and mutual funds. Once this is the position, the same was put before to Ld. DR but he could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) that assessee has no funds available or the investment in share or mutual fund is out of borrowed funds. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Addition of commission expenses - AO disallowed the claim of commission on the ground that no services were rendered by the commission agents, and, that the payments made to them were otherwise than for the purpose of business - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - We find that the genuineness of the claim has been verified by the AO in course of the remand proceedings. We further find from the facts of the case that the assessee has entered into agreement with the commission agents, and, the commission paid as per the terms of the agreement. We find from records that the assessee has filed complete details before the AO. The payments were made through banking channel, and, tax was also deducted at source. The books of accounts, bank statements, and, other relevant documents were produced, and, the AO has not found any defects in such books or documents. We find that in immediately preceding assessment year, the AO in the remand report, the AO has admitted that the nature of services rendered has been mentioned in the agreement, and, the commission agents have also confirmed rendering of services to justify the claim of commission. On the other hand, there is no material on record to show anything that could cast suspicion or doubt about the genuineness of the claim. In view of the above, there is no basis or justification for the disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by AO. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of exempt income under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.
2. Disallowance of commission expenses.

Issue 1: Disallowance of exempt income under Section 14A:
The appeal by revenue challenges the CIT(A) order deleting the disallowance made on exempt income under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by deleting the addition of Rs. 13,41,749 on account of Section 14A. The assessee earned dividend income on mutual funds and shares, claiming aggregated exempted income. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses related to exempted income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,46,773, considering various factors and observations. The revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as the CIT(A) had correctly analyzed the facts and circumstances, confirming that the investment in shares was made prior to the loan procurement, and the loan had a direct nexus with taxable income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.

Issue 2: Disallowance of commission expenses:
The next issue in the appeal by revenue pertains to the deletion of addition of commission expenses. The AO disallowed commission expenses paid to a specific entity as no services were rendered by the recipient. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee based on the immediate preceding year's order, where the addition was deleted for the same commission expenses in a related case. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the claim was verified by the AO during remand proceedings, and detailed documentation was provided by the assessee, including agreements and banking records. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, as there was no basis or justification for the AO's action. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue as well.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues, dismissing the revenue's appeal in its entirety. The detailed analysis of the facts and legal provisions led to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders, emphasizing the importance of verifying the genuineness of claims and considering the specific circumstances of each case in tax assessments.