2021 (7) TMI 664 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.14A - as per assessee exempt income was only in the form of dividend from mutual funds and further that there was no buying and selling of such funds frequently or on regular basis and it was only on maturity of old funds that new investments were made - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has only observed that the assessee's claim that it had not incurred any expenses in respect of management of investment affairs was not acceptable. The Assessing Officer has also observed that the earning of exempt income is not in nature of passive activity having no input. Assessing Officer could not have made the impugned disallowance when it was the assessee's claim that no expenditure had been incurred in relation to earning of exempt income specially because the assessee had duly explained that no expenditure was incurred in managing investments in the mutual funds which was based on free advice given by Deutsche Bank Investment Advisor. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the business of engineering & supply of grinding machinery for cement plants, filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The sole issue raised was the disallowance of ?3,03,857/- u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer noted that the appellant had made investments in mutual funds and earned dividend income without making any suo moto disallowance u/s. 14A. The AO disallowed the amount under Rule-8D(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading the appellant to approach the Tribunal challenging the decision.

The appellant contended that no expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income from dividend income out of mutual funds, and there was no nexus between the expenses debited and the exempted income. Additionally, the appellant argued that the investments in mutual funds were based on advisory services provided by Deutsche Bank, which did not charge the appellant for the service. The appellant also raised concerns about the absence of recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer regarding the correctness of the claim.

The Tribunal referred to similar cases where disallowances u/s. 14A were deleted due to the absence of actual expenses incurred by the assessee for earning interest-free dividend income. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the requirement of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had explained that no expenditure was incurred in managing investments in mutual funds based on free advice from Deutsche Bank Investment Advisor. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the inapplicability of the disallowance when no actual expenses were incurred for earning exempt income. The decision was announced on July 7, 2021, after a Virtual Hearing.

---