HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

The assessee is engaged in the business of distributing internet services through cable. The assessee had received dividend income of Rs.4,19,72,694/- from one of its associate company named M/s GTPL Hathway Ltd. Since the above said dividend income was claimed as exempt, the assessee disallowed a sum of Rs.67,64,294/- u/s 14A of the Act.

The assessing officer took the view that the disallowance computed by the assessee does not have any sound basis and reasoning and adhoc in nature. He further held that the expenditure occurring in sec.14A of the Act would take in its sweep not only direct expenditure, but also all forms of expenditure regardless of whether they are fixed, variable, direct, indirect, administrative, managerial or financial. Accordingly, he rejected the disallowance computed by the assessee. Accordingly, he computed disallowance at Rs.1,68,74,972/- by applying provisions of Rule 8D of I T Rules, which resulted in enhancement of disallowance by further amount of Rs.1,01,10,678/-. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance computed by Ld CIT(A) and hence the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The Ld D.R supported the orders passed by the tax authorities. However, the Ld A.R raised multiple contentions. He first submitted that the assessee has received dividend income from only one associate company. Despite this fact, the assessee has computed disallowance at Rs.67,64,294/- by considering expenses incurred for “Management Audit Team”. He submitted that assessing officer did not examine the working made by the assessee and did not record dissatisfaction over the same. He submitted that without recording dissatisfaction, the AO could not have resorted to the provisions of Rule 8D at all. However, we notice that the AO has specifically stated that the assessee did not consider all the expenses for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Hence, in our view, the AO has recorded dissatisfaction over the methodology adopted by the assessee, even though he did not specifically examine the workings made by the assessee.

The Ld A.R next contended that the value of shares in GTPL presently held by the assessee is NIL. Explaining it further, the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had originally held 11,99,334 shares of in GTPL as on 1.4.2015. During the financial year 2015-16, it received 4,79,73,360 bonus shares. During the FY 2017-18, the assessee has sold 72,00,000 shares.

The Ld A.R next contended that the suo-motu disallowance made by the assessee was sufficient enough to cover proportionate indirect expenses also. The Ld A.R submitted that he has furnished a working u/s 14A by considering all relevant expenses on proportionate basis under two methods, i.e., (a) proportionate to value of investments and (b) proportionate to income. Under investment based approach, the disallowance works out to Rs.26.14 lakhs and under income based approach, it works out to Rs.4.97 lakhs. The average of both works out to Rs.15.56 lakhs, while the disallowance made by the assessee was Rs.67.64 lakhs. Accordingly, he submitted that the no interference is called for in the working made by the assessee.

We noticed earlier that the AO did not examine the workings made by the assessee for computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the revised workings now furnished before us, the assessee has considered all relevant indirect expenses also. According to the assessee, the said method of workings results in disallowance of Rs.15.56 lakhs only, while the assessee had disallowed a sum of Rs.67.64 lakhs. Accordingly, we are of the view that, prima facie, there is merit in the above said submissions made by the assessee. However, we are of the view all the three types of workings made by the assessee require to be examined by the assessing officer. Accordingly for the said purpose, we restore this issue to the file of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A). We make it clear that the assessing officer should examine all types of workings made by the assessee and may

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.