2017 (8) TMI 478 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - revision u/s 263 - Held that - When the assessee has no exempt income, the question of disallowance u/s14A r.w.Rule 8D is not called for. The same view is expressed by the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in Redington (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT, 2017 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , Hon ble Delhi High Court in Chem Investments Vs. CIT, 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Principal CIT Vs. Sintex Industries Ltd., 2017 (5) TMI 1160 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that no disallowance is called for when assessee makes small investment from the surplus funds. There was no dividend income earned by the assessee and the case was taken for revision to disallow the business loss claimed against the property income which was examined by the AO and dropped the assessment proceedings and the Ld. CIT also satisfied that there is no case for revision on account of incorrect set off of business loss. With regard to the issue of disallowance u/s 14A as per the judicial pronouncements no disallowance is called for when there is no exempt income. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no case for revision of order u/s 263 and accordingly we set aside the orders of the CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Incorrect set off of business loss against property income
2. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of IT Act

Analysis:
1. Incorrect set off of business loss against property income:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessment was initially completed under section 143(3) assessing the total income at a certain amount. The CIT initiated revision proceedings under section 263 due to the incorrect set off of business loss against property income. The CIT observed that the business loss claimed was not justifiable as the loans were not used for business purposes. The assessing officer had initially proposed disallowance of the loss, but after the assessee's explanation, no addition was made. The appellant argued that the assessing officer had already considered the issue and decided not to make any addition, hence revision under section 263 was not permissible. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the assessing officer had examined the issue and made a conscious decision not to disallow the loss, thus the revision by the CIT was unwarranted.

2. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of IT Act:
During the revision proceedings, it came to light that the assessee had made investments in shares and bonds without making any disallowance as required under section 14A of the IT Act. The CIT directed the assessing officer to verify the disallowance required under section 14A. The appellant argued that section 14A was not applicable as there were no expenses related to the exempt income for the assessment year in question. The CIT contended that the investments made by the assessee from borrowed funds required disallowance of interest expenditure relating to earning dividend income. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had not earned any dividend income, and as per judicial precedents, no disallowance is warranted when there is no exempt income. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for revision under section 263 and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling in favor of the appellant on both issues raised in the case.