2016 (10) TMI 411 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.14A - Held that - We find that interest free funds available to assessee were more than the investment made by assessee during the year, that borrowed funds were not used for earning exempt income, that FAA had given categorical finding of fact that assessee had sufficient own funds for making investment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery under section 32(2) of the Act.

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The case involved an appeal by the Assessing Officer (AO) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The AO had made a disallowance of ?34.29 lakhs under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules, which was reduced by the Commissioner to ?4.30 lakhs. The AO contended that interest-bearing funds were used for investments, but the Commissioner found that the investments were made from own funds and restricted the disallowance. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the AO failed to prove diversion of interest-bearing funds and that the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and confirmed the Commissioner's order, ruling against the AO.

Issue 2: Claim of Additional Depreciation on Plant and Machinery under Section 32(2) of the Act:
The second ground of appeal pertained to the claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery under section 32(2) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim based on the argument that the assessee, engaged in construction and civil engineering, was not involved in manufacturing activities. The Commissioner, however, allowed the claim after considering previous Tribunal decisions and the Jurisdictional High Court's ruling in favor of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the rule of consistency and the absence of new facts. The Tribunal rejected the alternative plea to restrict the claim to 15%, stating that there was no provision in the Act for such proportionate restriction. By considering relevant legal provisions and previous decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the Commissioner's findings, ruling against the AO.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both issues, ruling against the Assessing Officer in the disallowance under section 14A and the claim of additional depreciation on plant and machinery. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legal precedent, consistency, and the absence of new evidence in reaching its decisions.