9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income is not taxable under the Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. The Revenue authorities cannot enforce untenable actions of the assessee against it which led to declaration of income of higher amount incorrectly. It is thus open to assessee to show that it was over assessed in correctly owing to its own mistake. So viewed, we do not see any potency in the argument laid on behalf of the Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed error in granting total relief in the matter of disallowance under s.14A of the Act. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(A) in granting relief under s.14A of the Act on account suo moto disallowance by the assessee and thereby granting relief higher than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the return of income filed, disallowance of Rs.68,06,152/- was offered suo moto by the assessee under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that it had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and therefore Section 14A of the Act had no application in its case. The Assessing Officer did not accept this contention of the assessee in view of CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and proceeded to re-compute the disallowance to be made under Section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D at Rs.73,06,483/-. He accordingly made a further disallowance of Rs.5,00,331/- under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) in the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the learned representatives of both the sides, the solitary issue involved in this appeal of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Greenland Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vide its order dated 14.11.2018 passed in ITA Nos. 2039 and 2040/Ahd/2016 wherein a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 which read as under:- 8. We shall now turn to the second issue raised on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom). The essence of these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee from claiming an expense or disputing an addition if it is otherwise permissible under law. It is thus well settled that if a particular income is not taxable under the Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. The Revenue authorities cannot enforce untenable actions of the assessee against it which led to declaration of income of higher amount incorrectly. It is thus open to assessee to show that it was over assessed in corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
