DR. PARTHA BISWAS ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.12.2017 passed by CIT(A)-6, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for AY 2014-15.

The only issue is to decided as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(iii) of the ITAT Rules. 3. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the Ld.AR was that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.9,649/- and the AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) & (iii) to an extent of Rs.76,014/- which is excess and unreasonable. Ld.AR placed reliance on the order of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sh. Sagarmal Mall vs ACIT in dated 06.04.2016 and by referring to para 9 on the said order, argued that the AO ought to have taken the investments which yielded exempt income for computing the disallowance of expenditure for the purpose of section 14A of the Act. We find the CO-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Sagarmal Mall (supra) by placing reliance in the case of REI Agro Limited of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta remanded the matter to the file of AO for a limited purpose of re-computing that the disallowance u/s 14A by excluding the investment on which no exempt income was actually received by the assessee. Therefore, taking into consideration the said facts and the submissions of Ld.DR & Ld.AR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for a limited purpose of computation of expenditure in terms of investment which yielded exempt income. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his contention. Thus, ground raised