9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INDRA BHAT, MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra and Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha and Sh. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. R.V.EASWAR, J.: (ORAL) This appeal by the revenue, filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act‟, for short) is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal‟, for short) on 13.5.2011 in ITA No.5519/Del/10. 2. The revenue seeks to raise the following question as a substantial question of law for adjudication : (A) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not remitting the matter back to the AO for re-computation of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act since the AO had appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer did not point out any discrepancy in the disallowance offered by the assessee itself nor was there any material to show that further expenditure needs to be disallowed under Section 14A. He held further that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules was notified only on 24.3.2008 and therefore took effect only from the assessment year 2008-09. In this view of the matter and applying the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA 626/2010 where it was held that Rule 8D took effect only from the assessment year 2008-09, the CIT(Appeals) held that the disallowance worked out by the Assessing Officer was not justified. He accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t able to uphold the objection. It was for the Assessing Officer to examine whether the disallowance offered by the assessee itself was sufficient on the facts and circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the view he took regarding the applicability of Rule 8D. It is not expected of him to take piecemeal decisions regarding the merits of the disallowance. In any case, when the disallowance was taken in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) was available and it was for the Assessing Officer to take out a plea before the CIT(Appeals) that the disallowance offered by the assessee was not sufficient, even if Rule 8D was not applicable but this was not done. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
