VIPUL ANANTRAI THOSANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 22(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3261/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 September 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to the exempt income.

What were the facts?

The assessee received exempt dividend income of Rs. 71,307 but did not disallow any expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,40,320 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee appealed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Ms. Samatha M

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20thMarch 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–34, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2014–15.

2.

The dispute in the present appeal is confined to disallowance of ` 5,40,320, under section 14A r/w rule 8D.

3.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application

2 Vipul Anantrai Thosani seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

4.

Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 20th September 2020, declaring total income of ` 51,01,520. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on verifying the material on record noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has received exempt income by way of dividend amounting to `71,307. Whereas, he has not disallowed any expenditure attributable to such income. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance of expenditure for earning exempt income should not be made in accordance with the provisions of section 14A r/w rule 8D. As stated by the Assessing Officer, in response to the query raised, the assessee furnished statement showing working of disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D at ` 5,40,320. Taking note of such working, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of ` 5,40,320, under section 14A of the Act. The assessee challenged such disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals) without any success.

3 Vipul Anantrai Thosani 5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. It is evident, the assessee had not disallowed any expenditure attributable to the exempt income. Only in response to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished a working of disallowance under rule 8D. However, as per the grounds raised before us, the specific case of the assessee is, the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D has to be restricted to the exempt income earned during the year. We find the aforesaid contention of the assessee acceptable. Now, it is fairly well settled in a catena of judicial precedents that the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income earned during the year. Following the settled legal principle, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D to an amount of ` 71,307. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, on 25.09.2020

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →