9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s / PPF. In terms of above, this ground of Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 858/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2018 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Appellant/ department : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.Sr. DR For The Respondent/ assessee : Shri Paras Nath Keshari, FCA, ld.AR ORDER Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is against the order dt. 16-02-2017 passed by the CIT-A, 10, Kolkata for the A. Y 2013-14. 2. The only effective issue in this appeal is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in deleting the impugned addition made u/s. 14A r. w. r 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on by the assessee. 5. Before us the ld. DR submits that the CIT-A has erred in deleting the impugned addition without considering the verdict of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta. 6. On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that the issue in hand is covered by the order dt. 26-12-2017 in assessee s own case, ITA No. 1131/K/2015 for the A. Y 2011-12 and referred to relevant paras of the order dt. 26-12-2017. 7. Heard rival submissions and perused the record including the said orders of the Co-ordinate Bench, ITAT, Kolkata, in assessee s own case. On perusal of assessment order, we find that the AO invoked Rule 8D and made impugned addition under Rule 8d(2)(ii) (iii). We find that the CIT-A held that own capital of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. 5. 1. In the submission the appellant has claimed that after disallowance of ₹ 15, 00, 000/- in the return of income by the appellant the only amount that remained claimed as expense in the P L A/c comes to abut ₹ 26, 48, 000/-. While making the addition the A0 lost sight of ₹ 15, 00, 000/- disallowance already made by the appellant in its return for the purpose of Section 14A. Thus, irrespective of the merit advanced by the Assessing Officer in para 4 of his order the proposed disallowance of ₹ 15, 00, 6, 432/- amounts to double addition by the said amount as the AO disallowed ₹ 26, 48, 587/- u/s. 14A/Rule 8D(2)(iii) and the appellant had already made addition u/s. 14A of ₹ 26, 48, 587/-. This addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal's order we observe that no reference was made to the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Dhanuka Sons vs. CIT in ITA No. 633 (Cal)(2004) reported in 339 ITR 319 wherein it was held as under:- 9. ln the case before us, there is no dispute that part of the income of the assessee from its business is from dividend which is exempt from tax whereas the assessee was unable to produce any material before the authorities below showing the source from which such shares were acquired. 10. In our opinion, the mere fact that those shares were old ones and not acquired recently is immaterial. It is for the assessee to show the source of acquisition of those shares by production of materials that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 8D(2)(ii) of I. T. Rules, 1961 relating to interest expenditure on exempted income from A. Y 2008-09 and it is applicable directly in the case of the assessee. From the above judgment, we note that it is the duty of assessee to justify the source of investment mad by the assessee in the investment / PPF irrespective of fact that the own fund of assessee exceeds the impugned investment in the light of above judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court (supra). We find that the issue of disallowance of interest will accordingly be decided after verifying the details whether the impugned investment was made by the assessee out of her own fund or borrowed fund. Thus, in the interest of justice and fair play we are inclined to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
