M/S. ARISTON CAPITAL ASSET HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 1 (4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient particulars to justify its disallowance. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and determination of the disallowance after providing the assessee with an opportunity to furnish necessary details.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in energy management, received dividend income and made a partial disallowance for expenses related to it. The AO, however, made a larger disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified, and if the assessee had provided sufficient material to substantiate its own disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai in dated 25.01.2019 for assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee filed this appeal belatedly by 93 days. An affidavit was filed stating that the impugned order was misplaced by the accountant without notice to the assessee which caused the belated filing of the appeal. It was pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and due decision may be rendered on the merits, in the interest of justice.
We heard the rival parties and condone the delay.
M/s. Ariston Capital Asset Holding Pvt. Ltd., the assessee is engaged in the business of energy management. While making the assessment for assessment year 2013-14, the AO, inter alia, made disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order the assessee filed this appeal. The case was heard through video conferencing.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee received Rs. 1,16,49,826/- as a dividend income during the year towards which it has disallowed Rs. 1,23,250/- in the memo of income filed. However, the AO invoked section 14A r.w.r. 8D and made a further disallowance at Rs. 58,61,215/-. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D had no application on the facts of the case and ought to have appreciated that the AO having not recorded satisfaction, the disallowance made should have been deleted and therefore, pleaded that the assessee’s appeal be allowed. Per contra, the Ld. DR inviting our attention to the relevant portion of the order of the CIT(A) submitted that onus was on the assessee to furnish breakup of interest expenditure disallowed by the assessee and to substantiate as to how the amount disallowed u/s. 14A by the assessee is in accordance with the provision. Since, the assessee has not furnished specific details, the AO recorded due satisfaction, invoked section 14A r.w.r. 8D and made the impugned disallowance. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and hence the Ld. DR submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be confirmed.
We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. The assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 1,16,49,826/-. The assessee in its memo of income deducted Rs. 1,23,250/- towards expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income. It is clear from the orders of the lower authorities that the assessee has not specified as to how it has arrived this quantum of disallowance. In the absence of specific particulars, the AO duly recorded reason and invoked section 14A r.w.r. 8D and made the impugned disallowance. Therefore, the onus is on the assessee to furnish relevant material towards earning of exempt income, breakup of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such :-4-: exempt income and substantiate that the amount of disallowance worked out by it is fair and reasonable. In the absence of such particulars, the AO invoked section 14A r.w.r. 8D and made the impugned disallowance.
Therefore, on the above facts and circumstance, we are of the view that in the interests of justice, this issue requires to be remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall furnish the relevant particulars/materials in connection with the exempt income and comply with the requirements of the AO in accordance with the law. The AO on due examination of it and after giving due opportunity to the assessee, shall determine the disallowance in accordance with law and pass a due order.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 06th January, 2021 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026