9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1352 - AT - Income TaxDenying the exemption u/s 10B - return of income not filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) - Held that - We are of the view that authorities below correctly denied the exemption under section 10B to the assessee because original return under section 139(1) was not filed within the period prescribed under section 139(1). Therefore, provisions of Section 10B(1) Proviso (3) will apply against the assessee. On this ground itself assessee would not be entitled for deduction. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - The assessee has own sufficient funds which are more than the investment made by the assessee. Therefore, no interest is to be disallowed. Further, A.O. has not made out a case if any borrowed funds have been used for the purpose of making investment to earn exempted income. In the absence of any nexus between the borrowed funds and the funds invested to earn exempt income, the disallowance of interest is not permissible. Set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 2,19,610/-. As regards the balance amount of ₹ 47,053/-, Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not make further submissions considering it to be a small amount. This part of ground is accordingly dismissed. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - In the penalty order the A.O. did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) penalty have been levied i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is well settled that penalty is not automatic and need not be imposed in each and every case. The facts and circumstances shall have to be considered. Considering all it is not a fit case of levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Exemption under Section 10B: The assessee challenged the denial of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act for a sum of ?2,43,53,575/-. The Revenue raised a cross-objection stating that no deduction under section 10B should be allowed as the return of income was not filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had denied the exemption because the original return was filed on 31st December 2008, beyond the due date. The requisite mandatory report in Form-56G was also filed late. The assessee argued that the delay was due to disputes among family members and cited that the option to claim under section 10B is on a year-to-year basis. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under section 10B(8) in earlier years, indicating that the provisions of this section may not apply. This declaration was considered applicable for the assessment year under appeal as well, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal on this ground. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the original return was not filed within the prescribed period under section 139(1), making the assessee ineligible for the deduction under section 10B. Consequently, the assessee's ground was dismissed, and the Revenue's cross-objection was allowed. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A: The assessee contested the disallowance of ?2,66,614/- under section 14A, which pertains to expenditure incurred in relation to income not includable in the total income. The A.O. had concluded that to earn dividend income of ?3,20,571/-, an expenditure of ?2,66,614/- was incurred. The assessee argued that minimal activity was required to earn the dividend and that no specific expenditure was incurred for this purpose. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, noting that some administrative expenditure must have been incurred. The Tribunal found that the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments made, and no borrowed funds were used for earning exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance of ?2,19,561/- on account of interest expenditure was deleted. However, the disallowance of ?47,053/- was upheld as the assessee did not contest this small amount further. Thus, this ground of appeal was partly allowed. 3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for denying the exemption under section 10B. The A.O. had noted that the original return was filed after the due date, making the revised return invalid and leading to the rejection of the section 10B claim. The assessee argued that all particulars were disclosed in both the original and revised returns, and the claim was denied only on technical grounds. The Tribunal observed that the claim for deduction under section 10B was denied due to the late filing of the return, but the claim itself was not found to be false or bogus. The assessee had disclosed all particulars, and the deduction was allowed in subsequent years by the CIT(A). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products, stating that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was thus not justified, and the orders of the authorities below were set aside, cancelling the penalty. Summary of Judgments: - The assessee's appeal (ITA.No.5547/Del./2012) was partly allowed. - The Revenue's cross-objection (C.O.No.95/Del.2013) was allowed. - The assessee's appeal against the penalty (ITA.No.6030/Del./2015) was allowed. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court.
|
