2018 (11) TMI 383 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143 - addition u/s 14A - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that there was no incriminating material found in the course of search leading to addition/disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act. It is the finding of the Assessing Officer that assessee had filed return of income making suomotu disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act which return was filed prior to the date of search and the assessment was completed u/s. 143 of the Act. The Revenue could not rebut the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search and in view of the of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation 2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made u/s. 14A. Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 14A - disallowance of indirect expenses under Rule 8D (2)(ii) - Held that - It is the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee received dividend income of ₹.750/- and claimed as exempt income. In the circumstances, the disallowance shall be restricted only to the exempt income received by the assessee. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D to ₹.750/-. Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed and the grounds raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12.
- Disallowance under Rule 8D for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15.

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for these assessment years. The Revenue contended that the disallowance made under section 14A by the Assessing Officer should be upheld. However, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance as there was no incriminating material found during the search and seizure action. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial decisions to support the deletion of disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition or disallowance can be made. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the sustained deletion of the disallowance for these assessment years.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Rule 8D for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15:
For the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under Rule 8D, which was challenged by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of indirect expenses but accepted the assessee's contention that only investments yielding dividend income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only investments generating dividend income should be factored in for disallowance. In the Assessment Year 2013-14, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Rule 8D to the amount of exempt income received by the assessee, which was ?750. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which was similar to the ruling for the previous year. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds and partly allowed the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Ultimately, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for the specified assessment years.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgments addressed the issues of disallowance under section 14A and Rule 8D for various assessment years, emphasizing the importance of incriminating material for making additions or disallowances and the specific considerations for calculating disallowances under Rule 8D based on investments yielding exempt income.