M/S AGNUS HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's errors to be genuine and acknowledged the Tribunal's power to admit such claims. The CIT(A)'s rejection was deemed unjustified.
What were the facts?
The assessee initially disallowed a sum under Section 14A but later re-computed it due to errors in identifying eligible investments. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the revised computation, confirming the initial disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were justified in rejecting the assessee's revised computation of disallowance under Section 14A, despite genuine errors being pointed out.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT1,842 citing284 ITR 323 · 2006 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19-01-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-1, Bangalore and it relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in rejecting the ground raised by the assessee in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.
We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee, initially, disallowed a sum of Rs.1,92,86,469/- u/s 14A of the Act. Later, it was noticed by the assessee that the above said disallowance was computed erroneously by considering certain items of investments, which should not be considered for computing average value of investments. Some of the items mentioned in the order of Ld CIT(A) were convertible debentures, share application money and National Savings certificate. Hence the assessee re-computed the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.1,18,27,082/- and requested the AO to adopt the same by filing a letter before the AO. However, the assessing officer did not consider the said letter. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the assessee itself has worked out the disallowance at Rs.192.86 lakhs. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal.
We notice that the assessee has noticed the errors before the completion of assessment proceeding and hence it has furnished revised computation of disallowance u/s 14A through a letter. However, the AO did not consider the same. Normally the mistakes committed in filing return of income are to be corrected only by filing revised return of income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (284 ITR 323). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the above said case, that its order does not impinge the power of the Tribunal.
We notice that the mistakes/errors pointed out by the assessee are genuine one. It is well settled proposition of law that there is no estoppel against law. Hence, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee should be admitted. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee itself has disallowed a sum of Rs.192.86 lakhs u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to examine the revised computation filed the assessee for disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 2nd May, 2019.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026