MEGATHERM ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (DCIT), CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2019AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its own precedent for a previous assessment year, decided to remand the matter back to the AO. This was to allow the AO to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the source of funds for investments.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned dividend income from its subsidiary and claimed no expenditure. The AO disallowed a significant amount under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii), which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee sought to submit additional evidence to show investments were made from own funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A was justified when investments were allegedly made from own funds, and if additional evidence should be admitted for re-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA

Hearing: 23.04.2019Pronounced: 10.07.2019

ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by CIT(A)-1, Kolkata for AY 2009-10.

2.

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “Rules”) in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

Heard both parties and perused material available on record. It is noted that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.15,03,200/- from its subsidiary company i.e. M/s. Engel Machine Tools Ltd. and claimed no expenditure was incurred in earning the said exempt income and contended that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is maintainable. The AO however by invoking the method under Rule 8D(2)(ii) made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to an extent of Rs.51,57,686/- vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) confirmed the order of AO by placing reliance in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Dhanuka & Sons reported in 339 ITR 319 (Cal.).

4.

Before us, Ld. AR submits that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Dhanuka & Sons (supra) is not applicable because the assessee made investment for acquisition of shares of its subsidiary companies from the own funds available in the hands of assessee without taking the benefit of borrowed loans. In order to substantiate the claim of having own funds in the hands of the assessee, no evidences whatsoever were filed before the both authorities below. According to him, the assessee filed petition to accept additional evidence before this Tribunal i.e. documents, details of date of investments, bank statement of relevant period, audited accounts for FY 2004-05 & 2005-06 and loan repayment schedule and prayed to accept the same and remand the matter to the file of AO for is fresh consideration to rework the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of Rules afresh in accordance with law. The Ld.DR reported no objection in sending back the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration in terms of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Dhanuka & Sons (supra).

5.

We find the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09, remanded the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration. Taking into consideration the same situation arising out of the filing of additional documents in support of the claim of having own funds in the hands of the assessee in acquiring the shares of its subsidiary companies. The relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-

6.

“We have heard the rival submissions. At the outset, we find that the assessee had filed additional evidence before us pointing out various factual aspects with regard to availability of own funds for making investments. However, we find that these Page | 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) papers were not furnished before the Ld. AO. We also find that these papers are crucial for adjudication of the issue before us and hence deem it fit to admit these additional evidences in terms of Rule 18(4) read with Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Hence, we direct the Ld. AO to consider these additional evidences filed before us and rework the disallowances to be made u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”

1.

6. In view of the observations of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and discussion made herein above in the afore-mentioned paragraphs, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO to rework the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and to pass an order in accordance with law. Thus, only ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2019.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →