Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 17.12.2018 pertains to A.Y. 2013-14.
The grounds of appeal
read as under :
1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the lone ground of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962. 1.1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the decision of AO did not appreciate that no disallowance u/s 14A could have been made in the absence of satisfaction recorded by him before proceeding to make disallowance under Rule 8D2((ii) and (iii)of I.T. Rules, 1962. 1.2 In so doing the Ld CIT (A's) did not follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2018) 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC) of apportionment of expenditure between income liable to tax and income which is exempt. 1.3 The Ld. CIT (A's) erred in upholding the decision of AO that interest on Public Provident Fund was liable to be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14Aof the Act. 1.4 In any event of the matter the Ld. CIT (A's) ought to have restricted the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 62,977/- being dividend received on shares held as stock in trade.
2 Keval H. Seth
In this case the ITAT had earlier passed an ex-parte order in which it was noted that the assessee proposed to go for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Hence, assessee’s appeal was treated as dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2021. However, subsequently, assessee requested to recall the said order of the ITAT. However, despite notice none appeared before the ITAT. Hence, I dispose off the appeal by hearing learned Departmental Representative and perusing the records. The sole issue relates to disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made investment into funds which yield or may yield exempt income. Hence he wanted to inquire whether any income attributable to earn exempt income has been disallowed or not. The assessee responded that it was carrying on the business of trading in shares and securities and hence it pleaded that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be done. However, Assessing Officer rejected the same and made the computation under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act.
Against the above order assessee appealed before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
Against this order the assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. I note that the assessee’s plea before the Assessing Officer that the assessee is trading in shares hence, no disallowance under section 14A should be done not sustainable on the touchstone of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (91 Taxmann.com 154). However, assessee’s plea that disallowance should be restricted to exempt income earned is sustainable. Accordingly I direct that the disallowance in this case should be restricted to exempt income earned.
3 Keval H. Seth
In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2022.