9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 38 - AT - Income TaxAddition made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that - Following the law laid down in GODREJ BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS 2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT , MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD 2011 (11) TMI 267 - DELHI HIGH COURT and CHEMINVEST LIMITED 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT we are of the considered view that the findings returned by AO that, making disallowance u/s 14A by the AO by relying upon CBDT Circular dated 05/2014 dated 11.02.14 that disallowance u/s 14A is to be made even if no exempt income has earned during the year under consideration, is no longer a good law because where the assessee has not earned any dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under assessment, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted. So making disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D in a mechanical manner without recording any dissatisfaction as to the working out made by the assessee that he has not incurred any expenses nor earned any dividend income during the year under assessment is not permissible under law. So consequently AO as well as CIT(A) have eared in disallowing/confirming the addition made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Justification of passing ex-parte order by CIT(A) without proper opportunity and adjudication. 2. Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D despite no dividend income earned. 3. Legality of confirming disallowance and sustaining order by CIT(A). Issue 1: The Appellant challenged the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15, contending that the order was unjustified due to lack of proper opportunity and adjudication as per section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant argued that the order contravened principles of natural justice and was unsustainable under the law. Issue 2: The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance of ?6,64,325 u/s 14A read with Rule 8D based on the investment made by the assessee in equity shares of domestic subsidiaries companies. However, the Appellant had not earned any dividend income during the assessment year. The Tribunal observed that the AO mechanically invoked the provisions of section 14A without recording dissatisfaction regarding the working out made by the assessee, which was not permissible under the law. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that section 14A is not attracted when no dividend income is earned, and making disallowance in such cases is erroneous. Issue 3: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal precedents, held that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) confirming the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D were incorrect. Relying on judgments by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Apex Court, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance made without any exempt income earned by the assessee was not valid. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed the deletion of the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. In summary, the ITAT Delhi held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) lacked proper opportunity and adjudication, the disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was unjustified due to no dividend income earned, and the orders confirming the disallowance were erroneous and not sustainable under the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned, and directed the deletion of the disallowance.
|
