2020 (6) TMI 26 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D - assessee claimed that no expenditure was incurred by the assessee in earning this dividend income - AO disallowed the expenditure alleging that the assessee debited demat charges and therefore disallowances u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D is applicable in case of the assessee - HELD THAT - AO has not given any reason why he is satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee and has simply remarked that he is not accepting the claim of assessee that it did not incur any expenditure for earning exempt income. It has to be kept in mind that reason is the soul of any order and here it is absent. A bald assertion by AO that he is not accepting the assessee s claim is arbitrary and so cannot be justified. The AO has not applied his mind while dealing with the issue and his action smacks of arbitrariness and therefore his action cannot be sustained. And since the ld. CIT(A) s action of non adjudication of the legal issue raised by the ld. CIT(A) makes it unsustainable and so inclined to set aside the order and direct deletion of addition made by AO on this issue by invoking Rule 8D. For the reasons stated above, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D regarding exempted dividend income.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-17, Kolkata for the assessment year 2012-13, specifically challenging the disallowance of ?19,48,630 out of the total disallowance of ?20,72,749 made by the AO under section 14A.

2. AO's Disallowance: The AO disallowed the expenditure amounting to ?20,72,749, claiming that the assessee had invested in shares and earned exempted dividend income, thus invoking Rule 8D. The AO's decision was based on the claim that no other expenditure was incurred by the assessee for earning the dividend income.

3. Contentions: The assessee contended that the AO did not provide a valid reason for rejecting their claim and did not establish a clear nexus between the exempt income and the disallowed expenditure. The assessee argued that the AO's disallowance was solely based on the auditor's disallowance of demat charges without proper verification.

4. Legal Provisions: Section 14A of the Income-tax Act and Rule 8D were crucial in this case. The AO must first be dissatisfied with the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee regarding income not forming part of the total income. The satisfaction of the AO is essential before invoking Rule 8D.

5. Judgment: The ITAT Kolkata emphasized that the AO must examine the veracity of the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income before resorting to Rule 8D. In this case, the AO directly applied Rule 8D without establishing the correctness of the assessee's claim. The ITAT found the AO's action arbitrary and unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

6. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition made by the AO under section 14A. Additionally, the judgment noted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the hearing period, following a precedent to exclude lockdown days from the hearing timeline.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal provisions applied, and the ultimate decision rendered by the ITAT Kolkata.