Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 and 2013-14 contest common order of Ld. first appellate authority qua confirmation of certain disallowance u/s 14A. 2. Both the representative, at the outset, converge on the point that the identical issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 dated 05/02/2018 wherein the matter has been restored back with certain directions. A copy of the order been placed on record. Therefore, similar directions have been sought by the respective representatives for these years also.
Facts on record for AY 2012-13 reveal that the assessee has been saddled with net disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D for Rs.13.64 Lacs. The assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.8.83 Lacs and offered suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.3.13 Lacs, the break- up of which has been given on para 2 of the quantum assessment order. However, Ld. AO computed aggregate disallowance u/r 8D (2) for Rs.16.78 Lacs and accordingly after adjusting suo-moto disallowance already offered by the assessee, added the differential amount of Rs.13.64 Lacs to the income of the assessee. The Ld. first appellate authority, after considering assessee’s submissions, directed Ld.AO to restrict the same to Rs.8.83 Lacs, being exempt income earned by the assessee. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon perusal of cited order of the Tribunal dated 05/02/2018 for AY 2011-12, we find that the matter of disallowance u/s 14A has been restored back to the file of Ld. AO with certain directions as given in para-6 of the cited order. Therefore, fact being identical, the matter stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication on similar lines. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
The impugned order is common order for both the years and the facts are pari-materia the same for AY 2013-14. Therefore, our directions as given in AY 2012-2013 shall mutatis mutandis apply to AY 2013-14 also. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Resultantly, both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd April, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 03/04/2019 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.