2022 (11) TMI 475 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest at the rate of 15% u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - We find the assessee through its authorized representative sought adjournment from time to time on the ground that the relevant documents were seized by the Pune Police. Having no evidence forthcoming from the assessee, CIT(A) having given ample time of two years to the assessee, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer basing on the material evidence available on record along with the statement of facts filed by the assessee with Form No.35. As noted from the record that the assessee filed the appeal memo in Form No.36 on 05.04.2019 and appeal was fixed for hearing on 12.05.2022. There was no proceeding on 12.05.2022, the appeal was adjourned to 20.07.2022. It is noted from the order sheet that from 20.07.2022, again on 25.08.2022 and today on 13.10.2022 there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee, but the appeal was adjourned from 20.07.2022 to 13.10.2022 for non-appearance of assessee. Therefore, there was no material placed on record by the assessee nor appeared through its authorized representative. Therefore, considering the material available on record, having no explanation offered by the assessee, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). We totally agree with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) vide para 3 of the impugned order. Thus, ground of appeal no.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - no details were furnished by the assessee regarding the profits accumulated by the assessee and its utilization for investments in subsidiary company - AO by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) made disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - Before us, no evidence in support of its claim were filed along with Form No.36 and in the absence of which, we have no option, except to confirm the order of the CIT(A). We agree with the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) - Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is justified and ground of appeal no.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against separate orders for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, a company involved in hotel and derivative trading, filed a return of income declaring total income as Nil. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The AO made additions under sections 36(1)(iii) and 14A of the Act but allowed set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation for previous years. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The assessee challenged the action regarding advances paid for non-business purposes and disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii).

2. The AO found that the assessee gave an advance of Rs.3,91,00,000 to an individual for non-business purposes. The AO disallowed interest at 15% under section 36(1)(iii) as the advance was for investment in properties. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to the lack of evidence and adjournments sought by the assessee. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The assessee also challenged the disallowance made under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. The AO disallowed an amount under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii) for non-business purposes. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as the assessee failed to provide any supporting evidence. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order due to the absence of any evidence supporting the assessee's claim, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for both assessment years.

4. The ITAT dismissed both appeals for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 as the grounds raised by the assessee were similar and had been previously dismissed. The appeals were dismissed based on the lack of evidence and explanations provided by the assessee, leading to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders.

In conclusion, both appeals by the assessee were dismissed by the ITAT for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to the lack of evidence, non-appearance, and failure to provide explanations, resulting in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders.