9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 789 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.36(i)(iii) - Addition of interest expenses as well as other expenses inspite of the admission of the fact that certain investments made out of borrowed funds - AO enquired from the assessee as to why disallowance should not be done under section 14A and without prejudice to the above, justify the interest payment u/s 36(1)(iii) - AO rejected the assessee s plea that share application money does not quantify for disallowance u/s 14A. He also rejected assessee s submission that investment made as strategic investment in subsidiary can help the case of the assessee. He also rejected the plea that no dividend income has been earned so disallowance u/s 14A cannot be done. HELD THAT - We note that assessee has made elaborate submissions and relied upon several case laws before ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) did not deal with them and has passed rather laconic order. It is settled law that even administrative order has to be considered with rule of natural justice. The factual details also need verification. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to pass a detailed order considering all facts of assessee s argument and case laws referred. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. 3. Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act. 4. Reconciliation of receipts as per Form 26AS. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act: The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 3,35,30,367 under Section 36(1)(iii). The AO noted that the assessee had made significant investments and incurred substantial financial costs, including interest paid to related entities. The assessee argued that the investments in Indian subsidiaries were made out of capital, not borrowed funds, except for Rs. 4,99,400 in Asia Coke Ltd. The AO, however, disallowed the interest, stating that the assessee failed to justify the business purpose of the interest expenditure. The AO also noted that the investments could only generate income under the head "income from other sources," which was exempt from tax, hence disallowing the interest under Section 36(1)(iii). 2. Disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act: The AO disallowed Rs. 1,12,47,302 under Section 37(1), attributing it to general and administrative expenses related to investments. The assessee contended that these expenses were incurred for business purposes and not related to investments in securities. The AO argued that since the investments were exempt from tax, the related expenses could not be allowed under Section 37(1). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision without detailed consideration of the assessee's arguments and case laws cited. 3. Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act: The AO made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 4,55,27,479, arguing that the assessee had made investments that could yield exempt income. The assessee argued that no dividend income was received during the year and that investments in subsidiary companies were made for commercial expediency, not for earning dividend income. The AO rejected these arguments, citing a CBDT Circular and previous assessments where similar disallowances were made. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Section 14A but confirmed the disallowances under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 37(1). 4. Reconciliation of Receipts as per Form 26AS: The AO noted that the assessee did not submit any reconciliation of receipts as per Form 26AS, leading to an addition of Rs. 37,629 for interest income received from Corporation Bank, Jammu & Kashmir. This issue was not elaborated upon in the appeal. Conclusion: The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the assessee's arguments and case laws cited, passing a rather mechanical order. The ITAT remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order considering all facts, arguments, and case laws. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee was granted an opportunity for a fair hearing.
|
