2023 (6) TMI 1223 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 14A - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income - Mandation of recording satisfaction - AO should record his dis-satisfaction with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure and to arrive at such dis-satisfaction he should give cogent reasons - HELD THAT - AO does not say he is not satisfied and why he was not satisfied. There are no reasons given. AO has relied upon some discussions and findings of some original assessment order passed, but the first assessment order ever to have been passed is the impugned order dated 28th March 2013 where the Assessing Officer has reduced the disallowance. Therefore, it only indicates clear non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. We would agree with the submissions of Ms Jain since CIT(A) in his order dated 9th December 2014 records Though not mentioned in assessment order, admittedly a notice u/s 143(2) was issued and assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search which came to be abated. In response to notice u/s 153A dated 24.10.2011 appellant filed return of income on 29.1.2011 declaring Total income of Rs. 317,47,69,697/- and Book Profit u/s 115JB Rs. 666,76,27,404/- In the assessment order dated 28.3.2013 passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3), the Assessing Officer has made certain additions/disallowance which are subject matter of this appeal . Assessment order dated 28th March 2013 is the order that was impugned before the CIT(A). Therefore it clearly indicates that the AO s finding in paragraph 5.2 of the assessment order is based relying upon a non-existent assessment order and that indicates clear non-application of mind.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Circular No. 5 of 2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
3. Computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee filed the original return for A.Y. 2009-2010, declaring income and claiming deductions under Section 80-IA. A search under Section 132 led to a reassessment, resulting in disallowances, including Rs. 59,34,74,860/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, but the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal. The High Court examined whether the Assessing Officer (AO) satisfied the mandatory requirement of recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim of expenditure. The AO's failure to provide cogent reasons or demonstrate dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim led the court to uphold the ITAT's decision, referencing cases like *Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bajaj Finance Ltd.*, *Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.*, and *Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.*

2. Applicability of Circular No. 5 of 2014:
The court did not address this issue as Mr. Suresh Kumar conceded that no submissions regarding Circular No. 5 of 2014 were made before the ITAT.

3. Computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act:
The court found no discussion in the impugned order related to Section 115JB. The revenue's failure to raise the issue with the ITAT through a Miscellaneous Application meant it could not be considered a substantial question of law.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial question of law arose from the case.