PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2258/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 March 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also reduced the 2% disallowance of expenses to 1%, stating it would not be a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed with a delay of 63 days, which was condoned. The appeal involved disallowance under Section 14A and a 2% disallowance of various expenses.

What were the issues?

The main issues were the correctness of disallowance under Section 14A and the justification for a 2% disallowance of various expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 10(34)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

Hearing: 04.03.2019Pronounced: 22.03.2019

For the Appellant : Shri D.K. Son, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 ORDER

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the CIT(A)- Durgapur’s order dated 23.05.2018 passed in case no. 17/CIT(A)/DGP/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 63 days’ delay in filing. The assessee has placed on record his medical certificate in support of condonation petition. The Revenue is far enough in not disputing correctness amount. I accordingly treat the impugned 63 days to be neither intentional nor deliberate. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

I come to the former issue of section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance of Rs. 1,68,523/- made in the course of assessment as confirmed the lower appellate proceedings. Suffice to say, the assessee has derived exempt income amounting to Rs.

Pawan Kumar Agarwal A.Yr. 2012-13 30,692/- only from dividends claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. Without going much into legality and merits of the assessee’s grievance, I deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of exempt income only as per hon’ble Delhi high court decision in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in dated 25.02.2015. Both the learned representatives are fair enough in not disputing this legal position qua the impugned disallowance . I therefore restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of Rs. 30,692/- only.

4. Next comes to assessee’s latter substantive ground seeking to delete 2% disallowance of various expenses confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) thereby partly upholding the Assessing Officer’s findings rejecting the said expenses to the extent of 10% on estimation basis. It transpires during the course of hearing neither the lower authorities are drawn any comparative chart of the impugned claim in preceding or succeeding assessment years nor the assessee has not been able to fully prove his case. I take into account all these facts to restrict the impugned disallowance @ 2% to 1% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year. This latter substantive ground is treated as partly accepted to the extent of 1% only.

4.

This appeal of the assessee is partly accepted in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Court on 22.03.2019

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →