2019 (11) TMI 585 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - suo-mto disallowance made by the appellant - HELD THAT - It is clear that the AO despite the fact that all the books of accounts were produced before him, he could not point out any nexus with the exempt income and that of the expenditure relatable to this exempt income. Even the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT has clearly laid down the principle that the satisfaction of the AO must be there for making disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. In the present case, the satisfaction is missing in all the years. MAT Computation - disallowances made while determining the income under section 115JB - HELD THAT - It is settled law that disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be applied while determining the book profit under section 115JB of the Act, in this regard we place our reliance on the order of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT vs, M/s. Bengal Finance Investments Pvt. Ltd 2015 (2) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.
2. Non-recording of dissatisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the assessee's claim of no expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income.
3. Rejection of the assessee's scientific working of disallowance under Section 14A.
4. Consideration of stock-in-trade for disallowance under Rule 8D.
5. Inclusion of investments not generating exempt income in disallowance computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii).
6. Addition of disallowance under Section 14A while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules:
The core issue revolves around the disallowance of ?23,08,920/- under Section 14A, which the AO computed by applying Rule 8D. The assessee had suo-moto disallowed ?2,58,264/-, but the AO was not satisfied and made a gross disallowance of ?26,05,735/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance, reducing it to ?23,47,471/-.

2. Non-recording of dissatisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the assessee's claim of no expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income:
The AO did not record any dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred in relation to exempt income, which is a prerequisite for invoking Rule 8D as per Section 14A(2) and 14A(3). The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the exempt income and the related expenditure.

3. Rejection of the assessee's scientific working of disallowance under Section 14A:
The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's scientific working of disallowance on the grounds that it was cryptic and not self-explanatory. However, the Tribunal found that the AO did not provide a satisfactory basis for rejecting the assessee's computation and relied on previous ITAT orders in similar cases where relief was granted to the assessee.

4. Consideration of stock-in-trade for disallowance under Rule 8D:
The assessee argued that stock-in-trade should not be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO did not point out any specific nexus between the stock-in-trade and the exempt income.

5. Inclusion of investments not generating exempt income in disallowance computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii):
The AO included investments not generating exempt income while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal found this inclusion inappropriate, as there was no evidence that such investments were related to earning exempt income.

6. Addition of disallowance under Section 14A while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action of adding the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal, relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in CIT vs. M/s. Bengal Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd., reversed this decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purposes of Section 115JB.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the AO to delete the disallowance of ?23,08,920/- under Section 14A, except for the suo-moto disallowance of ?2,58,264/-. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A should not be considered while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of satisfaction recorded by the AO, the inappropriate inclusion of stock-in-trade and non-income generating investments, and adherence to judicial precedents.