M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

आदेश/Order

PER BENCH:

The above appeals relate to the same assessee challenging two consolidated orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula relating to assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 and 2008-09 to 2010-11 both dated 13.03.2020 passed u/s 250(6)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’.

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 2 of 20

involved in all the appeals was common, relating to

disallowance of expenses incurred for the purpose of earning

exempt income as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act.

Therefore, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing.

appeals this was the second round before the ITAT. That in the

first round the ITAT had held the provisions of section 14A of

the Act, for the purposes of disallowing expenses relating to

exempt income, applicable in the facts of the present cases on

noting that the assessee had earned exempt income in the form

of dividend. That after holding so, the ITAT had restored the

issue of calculating the disallowance of expenses to the AO

with the direction to decide the same in accordance with the

provisions of section 14A of the Act and as per law. That

subsequently the AO, after giving due opportunity of hearing to

the assessee, had worked out the disallowance by applying the

mathematical formula provided in Rule 8D of the Income Tax

Rule, 1962 for the said purpose, making disallowance of

expenses for the impugned assessment years as under:

Asstt. Year Disallowance of Disallowance of Total Interest Expenses Administration Expenses 2006-07 Rs.40,54,400/- Rs.12,49,257/- Rs.53,03,657/- 2007-08 Rs.21,30,672/- Rs.10,75,091/- Rs.32,05,763/-

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 3 of 20

2008-09 Rs.11,96,147/- Rs.8,83,523/- Rs.20,79,670/- 2009-10 Rs.6,66,301/- Rs.7,94,186/- Rs.14,60,487/- 2010-11 Rs. 3,06,973/- Rs.7,89,686/- Rs.10,96,659/- 4. That the assessee filed appeal in all these years before the

Ld.CIT(A) who restricted the disallowance to the extent of

exempt income earned by way of dividend in all the years,

following his decision in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2014-

15 rendered in accordance with the view of the Hon’ble

jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Empire Package

Pvt. Ltd(2017) 81 taxmann.com 108(P&H). That the

disallowance was accordingly restricted in the impugned years

as under:

Disallowance restricted to the extent of Asstt. Year Exempt Income 2006-07 Rs.2,97,432/- 2007-08 Rs.2,48,224/- 2008-09 Rs.5,10,594/- 2009-10 Rs.4,44,910/- 2010-11 Rs.3,27,060 (suo moto by assessee 1,14,791 additional disallowance 2,11,270) 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the

findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in his order passed in assessment

year 2006-07, pointing out that his finding for the subsequent

years also was identically worded. The relevant findings of the

Ld.CIT(A) at paras 5.2 and 5.2.1 of his consolidated order is as

under:

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 4 of 20

“5.2 HELD: I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and examined the reply of the assessee. Identical issue on identical facts was decided by me in the Appeal No.58/PKL/17- 18 for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 27.08.2019 at para 12.2. which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “12.2 HELD: I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and examined the reply of the assessee. Brief facts of the issue at hand is that appellant has earned dividend income of Rs.4,61,378/- which is exempt income. Appellant while computing the taxable income has disallowed on his own an amount of Rs.5,59,228/- being 0.5% of average investment as expenditure towards earning of exempt dividend income. AO has mechanically held that since the assessee has not maintained the details of such expenses incurred in order to earn exempt income and therefore the disallowance u/s 14A should be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of The Act. LDAR has argued that appellant has itself made disallowance of Rs.5,59,228/- being 0.5% of average investment as expenditure towards earning of exempt dividend income and has disallowed the same while computing the taxable income but the AO has made further disallowance of Rs.28,28,207/- being proportionate interest expenditure. He further argues that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. He placed reliance on various cases. He furthermore submits that AO has not brought on record any expenditure which has been incurred by the assessee to earn the exempt income but has applied Rule 8-D of the Rules in a mechanical manner. And lastly he argued that the assessee had not made investments in the shares of the borrowed funds. The investments have been made out of the interest free funds of the assessee. 12.2.1 On careful perusal of facts of the case, I find merit in the arguments of the appellant ARs. First and foremost, AO has failed to bring on record that borrowed funds have been used to make investment in the shares. Moreover, it has been decided by various judicial authorities that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. The Delhi High Court in Joint Investments Pvt Ltd v CIT (lTA No.117/2015) has held that Section 14A or Rule 8D cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A of the Act, and is only to the extent of disallowance of

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 5 of 20

expenditure 'incurred by the assessee in relation to tax exempt income'- Accordingly, the tax exempt income cannot be disallowed entirely. Supreme Court has dismissed SLP of the Department against the judgment of Delhi High Court. Similar view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-!, Chandigarh vs. Empire Package (P.) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 108 (Punjab & Haryana) Dated 12.01.2016. The facts of the case are that income from dividend had been shown at Rs.1,11,564 whereas disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules worked out by the Assessing Officer came to Rs.4,09,675. The Hon'ble High Court has held that when the assessee claimed that it had not made any expenditure on earning exempt income, the Assessing Officer in terms of subsection (2) of section 14A was required to collect such material evidence to determine expenditure if any incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of exempt income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire tax exempt income which is not permissible as per settled position of law. In view of decision in CI1 vs. Deepak Mittal [2013138 taxmann.com 83/219 Taxman 314/120141361ITR 131 (Punj. & Har.) holding that the window for disallowance is indicated in section 14A and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure 'incurred by the assessee it relation to the tax exempt income', the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 3D as worked out by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with law and as such working was not sustainable. By respectfully following the above decisions disallowance exceeding the exempt income is deleted. The Ground of Appeal No.13 is partly allowed." 5.2.1. On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer and the reply of the assesse, it is undisputed fact that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09. Hon'ble ITAT while deciding the issue has held that since the dividend income is exempt from tax the provisions of section 14A disallowing expenses incurred for earning the same are attracted. They restored the issue to the AO for the limited purpose of applying the provisions of section 14A. Identical issue on identical facts was decided by me in the Appeal No.58/PKL/17-18 for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 27.08.2019 at para 12.2. Exempt income in the present case is Rs.2,97,432/-. Since the issue has already been decided by the undersigned in the AY 2014-15 supra, by following the same findings on identical facts, AO is directed to delete the addition

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 6 of 20

exceeding the exempt income. The Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 3 are partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has filed the present

appeals relating to the impugned years before us. The grounds

raised for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, it was

pointed out, were identically worded challenging the

application by the AO of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules,

1962, for working out disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as also

challenging on merits the upholding of disallowance by the

Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of exempt income earned. For the sake

of convenience the grounds raised in assessment year 2006-07

are reproduced hereunder:

“1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act/Rules ignoring that the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable to the relevant assessment year which is highly unjustified and uncalled for. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding disallowance to the extent of Rs.2,97,432/- which is highly unjustified and uncalled for.” 7. It was pointed out that for assessment years 2008-09,

2009-10 and 2010-11 the assessee had raised the solitary

ground challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on merits, as

raised in assessment years 2006-07. For the sake of

convenience the ground raised in A.Y 2008-09 is reproduced

hereunder:

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 7 of 20

“1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding the disallowance to the extent ofrs.4,33,381/- over and above the disallowance of Rs.77,213/- made by the assessee which is highly unjustified and uncalled for.” 8. Taking up first the issue raised in ground no.1 of the

Appeals pertaining to assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-

08,relating to the applicability of Rule 8D for calculating the

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.Counsel

for the assessee contended that the said rules were not in force

for the impugned year and, therefore, the disallowance of

expenses made by applying the said Rules ought to be deleted

in entirety. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention

to his submissions made in this regard before the Ld.CIT(A) as

under:

“At the very outset we would like to submit that the provisions of Section 14A(2), 14(3) and Rule 8D are nto applicable to the year under consideration, for which we make our submissions as under:- The Sub-ss.(2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act have been inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1 st April, 2007. Sub-s.(2) lays down that if the AO, having regard to the accounts of the assessee is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, then the AO shall determine the amount of such expenditure in accordance with method as may be prescribed. Sub-s.(3) declares that provisions of sub-s.(2) would also apply in relation to a case where assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of total income.

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 8 of 20

Thus the Sub-ss.(2) and (3) of s. 14A are applicable from the asst. yr. 2007-08 onwards. However, sub-s. 14A remained an empty shell until the introduction of r.8D on 24t h March, 2008 which gave content to the expression “such method as may be prescribed” appearing in s. 14A(2). The Rule 8D became operational and applicable from AY 2008-09. It is well settled law that the provisions of Section 14A and Rule 8D would operate prospectively. For this reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC…………….. GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. 328 itr 0081 (Bom.)……………….. MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX* (2012) 247 CTR 0162:………………….. In view of above, we submit that the provisions of Section 14(2), Section 14(3) and Rule 8D are not applicable to the year under consideration. Thus the disallowance made by the AO applying Rule 8D be deleted.” 9. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, contended that mere

applicability of Rule 8D, which was not enforceable or attracted

in those years, would not negate the entire disallowance since

even the ITAT in the first round had held that the disallowance

with respect to the exempt income earned had to be calculated.

That merely because the AO had applied a formula which was

not applicable in the impugned years would not mean that the

entire disallowance calculated by him needed to be deleted.

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 9 of 20

the assessee contended that in the facts of the case no

disallowance of expenses was liable to be made since it had

been demonstrated to the authorities below that the

investments made were very old, having been made some 20-25

years back out of interest free funds in the form of share

capital invested by the Government in the assessee’s concern.

That the matter regarding the source of funds already stood

settled by the ITAT in the assessee case in A.Y 2003-04 &

2004-05 and the AO after due verification had deleted the

disallowance of interest in those years. Our attention was

drawn to the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) in this

regard as under:

“However on merits we submit as under:- During the year the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.2,97,432/- i.e. Rs.5760/- from Uni Products Limited, Rs.1,25,000/- from GRM Overseas Limited, Rs.1,,25,632/- from JBM Auto Components Ltd. And Rs.41,040/- from Industrial development bank of India. The divided income received during eh year has been declared as exempt income as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. During the year the assessee has not incurred any expenditure to earn the dividend income. However he AO has made the disallowance of Rs.53,03,657/- applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D2)(iii) ignoring the submissions of the assessee which are placed at PB Page 15-18. In this regard we would like to first refer to the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act which are reproduced as below:

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 10 of 20

“14A. For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.” On perusal of the above, it can be seen that to apply provisions of section 14A of the Act, the assessee must have incurred expenditure in relation to exempt income. In this regard we submit as under:- The assessee during the year has earned dividend income from Uni Products Limited, GRM Overseas Limited, JBM Auto components Ltd. & Industrial development bank of India. The investments in the shares of M/s Uni Products Limited was made in the year 1987-88, GRM Overseas Limited in the year 1995-96, JBM Auto components Ltd. In the year 1996-97 and Industrial development bank of India in the eyar 1995-96. It is pertinent to mention here that no investment has been made by the assessee during the year.(PB Page 19-22). These investments were made way back approximately 25 to 35 years ago. The whole exercise does nsto require any expense to be incurred. The investments were made years ago and the dividend is automatically credited through ECS mode. Thus once the investments were made, there are hardly any expenses which are required to be incurred. It is like making an FDR out of surplus funds, keep invested, earn interest until funds are required. Once the FDR is made, interest is automatically accruing which does not require any amount of expense to be incurred. Thus the assessee has not incurred any expense during the year to earn exempt income. However the AO has made the disallowance ignoring the aforesaid fact. It is well settled that the disallowance can be made only it is proved that the assessee has incurred expenditure for earning the exempt income. For this reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements:-

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 11 of 20

In the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) (para 36)….. Again in the judgment of Maxopp Investment Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) vide para 32………… In view of the above, the first condition to apply provisions of sec 14A of the Act is that the assessee must have incurred expenditure which can be said to be related to exempt income is not being fulfilled. Secondly, The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any expenditure which has been incurred by the assessee to earn the exempt income. Instead has simply applied Rule 8D of the Rules in a mechanical manner as a formula and calculated the disallowance which is not applicable to the year under consideration. It is well settled that before any disallowance is made by the assessing officer, the AO should bring on record certain expenditure which must have been incurred by the assessee, which in the present case is missing. For this reliance is placed on the following:- Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR (Del) 162 (2012) 347 ITR 272(Delhi)……… In view of the above it is stated that the AO has erred in making disallowance without bringing on record any expenditure which has been incurred for earning exempt income and has also failed to record any satisfaction before making disallowance. It is pertinent to mention that the AO instead of recording satisfaction has only insisted on the fact that the disallowance u/s 14A is made as per the directions of the Honorable ITAT. The AO has failed to consider that the ITAT has restored the matter for limited

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 12 of 20

purpose of verification to the AO to see the applicability of Section 14A on the assessee. The AO was required to see whether Section 14A was to be applied on the assessee or not but AO simply proceeded to apply the same without any application of mind & without recording any satisfaction. The AO neither controverted the contention of the assessee nor has brought any fallacy in the claim of the assessee. Considering the fact that there was absence of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding incorrectness of claim of the assessee as the AO has not pointed out even a single expenditure to have been incurred for earning dividend income we pray that the AO could not have proceeded to disallow expenditure incurred for earning exempt income u/s 14A applying Rule 8D and we request that the disallowance made by the AO is unwarranted and needs to be deleted. It is pertinent to mention further that the assessee had ample reserves and surplus and all the investments were made by the assessee out of the interest free funds of the assessee. The assessee had not made by investments in the shares out of the borrowed funds. The investments have been made by the assessee in the shares more than 25-35 years ago out of the funds received from the State Government for the purpose of investing the same. It is pertinent to mention here that no investment has been made by the assessee in the aforesaid shares during the year(PB Page 19-22). Also, the matter regarding the source of funds from which the investment has been made is already settled by the ITAT in the assessee’s case itself in AY 2003-04 & AY 2004-05. For this, we would like to bring on record the facts of the case which are as under…………..

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 13 of 20

The AO after due verification had deleted the addition made on account of disallowance of interest in the aforesaid years. The copy of order of ITAT and the AO giving appeal effect is enclosed herewith at Page 23-60. It is settled fact that the no interest bearing funds have been invested by the assessee in shares. The entire income from which dividend was earned during the year was from the investments which were existing as on 01.04.2005. In the case, where the assessee had enough own surplus funds for the purpose of making the said investments which were interest free, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. For this reliance is placed on the following:- The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., ITA No.186 of 2013 (O&M) dated 6.9.2016,……….. CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Limited 319 ITR 204 (P&H)………. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. India Gelatine And Chemicals Ltd.(2015)93 CCH 253 GUJHC……. Further it has been settled by the Apex Court that no disallowance on account of interest expense if borrowed funds have not been used for investments…….. Thus, the AO has erred in making disallowance on account of interest as per the provisions of Rule 8D(2(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we request that the addition made be deleted. Without prejudice to the above we submit as under: It is well settled that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. The Delhi High Court in Joint Investments Pvt.

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 14 of 20

Ltd v CIT (ITA No.117/2015) held that Section14A or Rule 8D cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A of the Act, and is only to the extent of disallowance of expenditure ‘incurred by the assessee in relation to tax exempt income’. Accordingly,, the tax exempt income cannot be disallowed entirely. Reliance is also placed on:- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Empire Package (P) Lltd. 136 DTR 0342 (P&H)……………. Principal CIT v. State Bank of Patiala……….. Pest Control India Pvt Limited (ITA NO.5048/Mum/2016)…………. It is pertinent to mention further that in the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15 to AY 2016-17, the CIT(A) has held as under:- “12.2.1 On careful perusal of facts of the case, I find merit in the arguments of the appellant ARs. First and foremost, AO has failed to bring on record that borrowed funds have been used to make investment in the shares. Moreover it has been decided by various judicial authorities that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income. The Delhi High Court in Joint Investments Pvt Ltd v CIT (ITA No.117/2015) has held that Section 14A or Rule 8D cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A of the Act, and is only to the extent of disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to tax exempt income’. Accordingly, the tax exempt income cannot be disallowed entirely. Supreme Court has dismissed SLP

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 15 of 20

of the Department against the judgment of Delhi High Court. Similar view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-1, Chandigarh vs. Empire Package(P) Ltd.(2017) 81 taxmann.com 108 (Punjab & Haryana) Dated 12.01.2016. The facts of the case are that income from dividend had been shown at Rs.1,11,564 whereas disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules worked out by the Assessing Officer came to Rs.4,09,675. The Hon’ble High Court has held that when the assessee claimed that it had not made any expenditure on earning exempt income, the Assessing Officer in terms of sub-section (2) of sec 14A was required to collect such material evidence to determine expenditure if any incurred by the assessee in relation to earning of exempt income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire tax exempt income which is not permissible as per settled position of law. In view of decision in CIT vs. Deepak Mittal [2013] 38taxmann.com 83/219 Taxman 314/2014] 361 ITR 131 (Punj. & Har) holding that the window for disallowance is indicated insection14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure ‘incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income’, the disallowance under sec 14A read with rule 8D as worked out by the assessing Officer was not in accordance with law and as such working was not sustainable. By respectfully following the above decisions disallowance exceeding the exempt income is deleted.” In view of the aforesaid judgments wherein it has been categorically held that the disallowance cannot exceed dividend income and also exempt income cannot be disallowed entirely, it is requested that the disallowance be restricted to the exempt income as the assessing officer has

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 16 of 20

disallowed Rs.53,03,657/- u/s 14A as against dividend income of Rs.3,26,060/-.” 11. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further pointed out that

the disallowance of administrative expenses in any case was to

be calculated only with respect to the investments which had

earned exempt income in the form of dividend. In this regard

he drew our attention to the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

in the case of ACB India Limited Vs. ACIT (2015) 374 ITR

108(Del).

to the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) as reproduced above and it was

pointed out that there were no clarity as to whether the

disallowance of expenses restricted by the Ld.CIT(A) to the

extent of exempt income earned related to interest expenses or

administrative expenses. It was pointed out that in the absence

of the same it was virtually impossible to adjudicate the issue

in the context of disallowance of interest expenses or

administrative expenses as argued by the Ld.Counsel.

Both the parties agreed to the same.

reconsideration at the end of the Ld.CIT(A) to give clear

findings in all the impugned years with respect to the

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 17 of 20

disallowance upheld whether it related to interest expenses or

administrative expenses.

Both the parties fairly agpreed with the same. 14. In view of the above, since the submissions of the

Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us against the disallowance

upheld u/s 14A of the Act being expense specific and the

Ld.CIT(A) having given no finding regarding the nature of

disallowed expenses upheld by him, we restore the issue

raised by the assessee on merits against the said disallowance

back to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Ld.CIT(A) is

directed to consider the submissions made by the assessee and

thereafter adjudicate the issue giving clear finding regarding

the nature of disallowed expenses upheld if any. Needless to

add the assessee be granted due opportunity of hearing.

appeal filed relating to assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08

urging that the entire disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act

needed to be deleted since Rule 8D was not applicable in the

impugned years, we are not convinced with the same. Merely

because the AO had adopted an incorrect method for working

out the disallowance does not mean that the entire

disallowance was not tenable in law, more particularly when

the ITAT had in the first round held that in the light of the fact

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 18 of 20

that the assessee had earned exempt income, section 14A of

the Act was attracted and the AO was only required to work out

the disallowance as per the provisions of law.

incorrect application of formula by the AO for the impugned

years needs to be looked into and a proper method for working

out the disallowance need to be arrived at in the said two years

i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08. This issue, therefore, also needs

reconsideration at the end of the Ld.CIT(A).

restored back to the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to rework the

amount of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A for all the

assessment years in accordance with law, giving a clear finding

of the nature of the expenses disallowed.

challenging the application of Rule 8D for calculating

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act, is restored back

to the Ld.CIT(A) with the directions to calculate the same as

per appropriate method, in accordance with law. Needless to

add due opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee.

Ground No.2 raised by the assessee challenging the

merits of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, upheld is also

restored back to the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh the issue in

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11

Page 19 of 20

accordance with law giving clear finding regarding the nature

of disallowed expenses u/s 14A of the Act, upheld by him if

any. Due opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee.

The appeals in ITA No.275 & 276/Chd/2020 are allowed

for statistical purposes.

the assessee challenging the merits of the disallowance u/s

14A of the Act, upheld is restored back to the CIT(A) to

adjudicate the issue in accordance with law giving clear

finding regarding the nature of disallowed expenses u/s 14A of

the Act, upheld by him if any. Due opportunity of hearing be

given to the assessee

The appeals in ITA No.277 to 279/Chd/2020 are allowed

for statistical purposes.

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 04.03.2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member Dated: 4th March, 2021 *रती*

ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11 Page 20 of 20

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar