9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Both the appeals have been filed after the period of limitation and, accordingly, barred by limitation. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that Shri S.P. Garg, Managing Director of the assessee company handed over the appeal papers to one Shri Pushkar Pandey who works in the office of the ld. counsel for the assessee. Both Shri S.P. Garg and Shri Pushkar have filed affidavits to show that the appeal papers were misplaced due to office renovation work and could only be discovered after substantial lapse of time and immediately thereafter, appeals were filed. 5. The ld. counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure and accordingly, computed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D amounting to Rs. 12,24,394/- in A.Y 2011-12 and Rs. 10,01, 542/- in A.Y 2012-13. 11. The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 12. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 6827/DEL/2014 for A.Y 2009-10. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that while making disallowance, the Assessing Officer has himself mentioned that there is no expenditure which is directly attributable to the exempt income and disallowances have been made only considering the past history of the assessee. 13. With this in mind, the past history, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to maintain consistency and keep issue alive. Such specific findings proves that factually no incurrence of expenditure is found even in a subsequent year though revenue is making addition merely to keep issue alive. Hence we do find force in the claim of assessee about non-incurrence of expenditure and upheld same. 10. Beside above, basis of invoking s. 14A as is stated above is not in terms of said provision read with rule 8 D. There is absolutely no satisfaction except rejection of explanation of assessee. There is no reference to any item of expenses found related to exempt income. There is no reference to accounts in relation to this issue either or even any material/basis in AO order. With the development of law, now we have serie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that AO merely conjectured that, "there is inbuilt cost even in passive investment as also incidental expenditure like collection, telephone, follow up etc, Thus concluding that expenses are embedded in as indirect expenses. This is not as per requirement of rule 8D. There is no satisfaction recorded based on the accounts of assessee. The AO simply presumes that since exempt income exists ....................' 13. In the present case AO has not even identified any specific item of expense he merely says that explanation of assessee is not correct as huge investment is made. As per above discussion respectfully following above authorities which are binding on us it is held that there is no satisfaction of terms of s. 14A read with Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
