SIMPSON& GENERAL FINANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1226/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 December 2019AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, relying on a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for a similar issue. The assessee failed to identify investments not yielding exempt income, and the disallowed expenditure was less than the exempt income earned.

What were the facts?

The assessee offered only the interest portion of lease rent for taxation, not the principal. The Assessing Officer added the principal portion, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, which was also confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the principal portion of lease rent should be taxed and whether expenditure incurred for earning exempt income is disallowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Pronounced: 12.12.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–15, Chennai dated 30.01.2019 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the first issue arises for consideration is addition of Rs.1,32,252/- towards principal portion of the lease rent. According to the Ld.counsel, in the return of income the assessee has offered interest portion only for taxation, the principal portion of the lease rent was not offered. Therefore the Assessing Officer made an addition to the extent of Rs.1,32,252/-. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld.counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08, an identical issue came before this Tribunal. This Tribunal confirmed the similar order of the Assessing Officer and on further appeal before the High Court, the High Court also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

2.1 We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. It is not in dispute that the assessee has offered only interest portion for taxation, the principal portion of the lease rent was not offered for taxation for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. An addition was made by the Assessing Officer which travelled up to Madras High Court. The Madras High Court confirmed the identical order of this Tribunal confirming the identical addition. Considering the order of the High Court in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08, we do not CIT(A). Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed.

3.

The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of expenditure to the extent of Rs.4,08,617/- for earning the exempt income.

3.1 The ld.Cousel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has disclosed Rs.7.44 lakhs as exempted income earned on the investment. However the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.4.08 lakhs. According to the Ld. AR, the investment which has not yielded exempted income should not be disallowed for computing the average value of investment under Rule 8D(2)(iii). On a query from the Bench, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee clarified that he may not be able to identify the investment which does not yielded any exempted income.

3.2 We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. It is not in dispute that the assessee has earned Rs.7.44 lakhs as dividend income, which is admittedly exempted from taxation. For computing the disallowance U/s.14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), apart from the direct expenditure the expenditure relating to investment which has yielded any exempted income has to be considered. In this case, the assessee could not identify the investment which has not yielded any exempted income. Moreover the exempted income earned by the assessee is about Rs.7.44 lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed only Rs.4.08 lakhs. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly the same is confirmed.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →