9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after incurring some expenditure”, which is purely a guesswork on the basis of surmises and not permissible under law. More so, in the face of the fact that audited balance sheet and books of account have not been disputed by the revenue, the ground taken by the CIT (A) for affirming the order of the AO is not sustainable.. Addition made by AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.6447/Del./2012 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2016 - SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The ASSESSEE : Shri Adhir Kumar Samal, FCA For The REVENUE : Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of appellant that no expenditure has been claimed in relation to income not forming part of total income . Thus, the addition so confirmed by the Ld . ( IT ( A ) is bad in law and may please be deleted . 4 . That the Ld . CIT ( A ) has erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs . 17,36,661 /- made by the Ld . Assessing Officer u / s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 where the alleged investment of Rs . 3,04,00,000 /- has not been made out of borrowed or interest bearing funds . Thus, the addition so confirmed by the Ld . CIT ( A ) is bad in law and may please be deleted . 5 . That we crave to add; delete, modify or withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3,13,50,000 / s . 3,99,79,186 /- = Rs . 15,79,911 /- ( iii ) An amount equal to one - half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not from part of the total income . Half of average value of investment of 0 . 5 % * 3,13,50,000 = Rs . 1,56,750 /-. The amount of Rs . 17,36,661 /- is disallowed u / s 14A of the IT Act . AO assessed the total income at Rs . 29,46,549 /-. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) who has affirmed the order by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usions that, the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred is incorrect. Assessee has come up with categoric plea that no exempt income has been earned during the year under assessment nor the assessee has incurred any expenses for managing the investments. From the books of account, AO has not identified any expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning any dividend income but proceeded to invoke the provisions contained under Rule 8D(2)(iii) merely on the basis of guesswork that too without recording his dis-satisfaction as to how the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred. Likewise, CIT (A) has also proceeded on the basis of guesswork in sustaining the addition. 8. Hon ble jurisdictional Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
