9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehiya Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain ORDER Per : Shamim Yahya , A. M. This is an appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee arising out of orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai ( ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 05.11.2018 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. The Revenue s grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s.14(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act' for short) to ₹ 22,82,187/- being the suomotu disallowance done by the assessee itself. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) in this case has made a disallowance of ₹ 10,91,61,614/- u/s.14A of the Act. 4. Upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-, the disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110 per cent of that sum i.e. ₹ 52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Sec. 14A or r.8Dbe interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Sec. 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income . This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 10. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. Consequently, order of the Assessing Officer is set aside. The initiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of CIT vs. Delight Enterprises (in ITA No. 110/2009) has expounded similar proposition. Accordingly, the Revenue s appeal stands dismissed. 7. In the cross objection, the assessee had submitted that the learned CIT appeals ought to have restricted the disallowance to the exempt income of ₹ 44,250/- instead of observing that the disallowance should be restricted to ₹ 44,250/-. being the suomotu disallowance done by the assessee. 8. In this regard, the learned counsel of the assessee relied upon the decision of this tribunal in the case of Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 600 (Mum.), wherein the ITAT has upheld similar proposition by the assessee by referring to Article 265 of the Constitution of Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 11. In this regard, we note that as rightly observed by the ITAT bench in the aforesaid case of Tata Industries (supra), no tax can be collected except as per the mandate of the law. If the assessee has erroneously offered more income for taxation, the same cannot be a bar to the assessee in seeking remedy before the appellate forum. In this regard, we refer to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), where the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that nothing in that order would prevent the ITAT in admitting an additional claim which was raised for the first time without a revised return. Furthermore, we also note here the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
