Master Handlers Private Limited… vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Hearing: 16.01.2019Pronounced: 08.02.2019

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-7, Pune, dated 30.06.2017 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A)-7, Pune erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ITO Ward, 14(4) Pune (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO) amounting to Rs.15,67,949/-.

ITA No.2368/PUN/2017 2 Master Handlers Pvt. Ltd.

The learned CIT(A)-7, Pune erred in law and on facts in affirming disallowance u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned AO, without appreciating the fact that no satisfaction was recorded by the learned AO w.r.t. claim of appellant that no expenditure is incurred for earning tax free income. 3. The learned CIT(A)-7, Pune and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that appellant had sufficient own funds of Rs.5.18 Crs. Wherefrom, the investment in Shares and Mutual Fund amounting to Rs.4.94 Crs. was made. 4. The learned CIT(A)-7, Pune and learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the ratio of jurisdictional Honorable Bombay High Court emanating from the decision given in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Limited – 366 ITR 505.

The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal but all relating to different facets of disallowance under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 15,67,949/-. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by assessee is against non-recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. The assessee referred to the assessment order and pointed out that the Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction. It may be pointed out herein itself that this is the case where assessee had not made any suo motu disallowance under section 14A of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings at page 3 of assessment order, it is very clearly noted that the assessee was asked as to why disallowance should not be made under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’). Thereafter, the assessee has given reply. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the plea of assessee that no satisfaction was recorded for making disallowance under section 14A of the Act.

MASTER HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(4),, PUNE

Cases cited in this judgment