2022 (7) TMI 379 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee as business expenses - Addition made as assessee had no business - HELD THAT - As both, ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO have taken a rational approach by making a disallowance to an extent of 50% of the expenses claimed as business expenses, more particularly in a given situation where the issue of non-submission of details of expenses along with supporting documents has not been controverted by the assessee except for embarking upon the appellate orders of preceding years without bringing on record, similarities in the facts and issues dealt therein and when 98.7% of the total area of the building has been let-out for earning rental income and only 1.3% is available otherwise. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 1 and 2 of the appeal by the assessee are dismissed. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) - assessee submitted that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt dividend income - HELD THAT - We note that this issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. REI Agro Ltd. 2013 (12) TMI 1517 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT which has upheld the findings of the ITAT by holding that only those investments could be considered for the purposes of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) which had yielded tax free dividend income during the year. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court 2013 (12) TMI 1517 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , we find it proper to remit this specific issue to the file of the ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification and to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering the decision supra. Accordingly, this ground no. 3 of appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of 50% of employee benefit expenses and other expenses totaling Rs. 45,58,001/- as business expenses.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 13,82,342/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of 50% of Employee Benefit Expenses and Other Expenses:

The appellant challenged the disallowance of 50% of employee benefit expenses and other expenses totaling Rs. 45,58,001/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) while computing business income. The AO observed that the assessee had not provided sufficient details to justify these expenses as incidental to business income, noting that 98.7% of the building area was let out, and only 1.3% was used for business purposes. The AO disallowed these expenses, reasoning that the standard deduction under Section 24 of the Act already accounted for repairs and maintenance expenses. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, distinguishing the facts from previous years where similar disallowances were fully made. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing the lack of supporting documents from the assessee and the significant portion of the property being rented out. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the disallowance, noting that the rule of consistency applies unless there is a material change in facts, which was present in this case.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii):

The appellant also contested the disallowance of Rs. 13,82,342/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), arguing that no expenses were incurred to earn the exempt dividend income of Rs. 34,15,496/-. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. REI Agro Ltd., which held that only those investments yielding tax-free dividend income during the year should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Respecting this precedent, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification and re-computation of the disallowance, following the High Court's decision.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 50% of the employee benefit expenses and other expenses due to the lack of supporting documents and the significant rental use of the property. However, it remitted the disallowance under Section 14A back to the AO for re-computation in line with the High Court's decision in REI Agro Ltd.