Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai in 10/A.III dated 18.02.2013
:- 2 -: ITA No.1230/Mds/2013
The assessee has raised three substantive grounds (i) the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of MCH Taxes claim and society maintenance charges of Rs. 13,71,437/-, (ii) the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D and (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the disallowance of expenses towards Login Ad’s and Hanza Zone for want of additional evidence. At the time of hearing the Ld AR has not pressed ground No. 12 and made endorsement.
The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of financial investments and filed the Return of income on 21.10.2002 with total loss of Rs. 32,06,051/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed the reply on 09.12.2009 to treat return of income filed as compliance. Further, the Ld. AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has claimed from income from house property, payment of society maintenance charges of Rs. 13,71,437/- and filed the explanations that these charges includes municipal taxes of Rs. 10,80,112/- and Rs. 2,91,325/- other expenses and the Municipal Tax Receipts are in respect of Pusa Road property at New Delhi Rs. 9,38,427/- as furnished by the assesseee relate to the financial year 2001-02. Since, the assessee could not support with evidence
:- 3 -: ITA No.1230/Mds/2013 the Ld. AO disallowed the claim. The assessee received dividend income of Rs. 77,47,866/- and claimed exemption and further has not disallowed any expenditure. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.
8D of the Income Tax Act and worked out disallowance of Rs. 7,25,801/- and on the third disputed issue the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 37,33,247/- towards Login Ads and Rs. 33,07,475/- towards Hanza Zone. The assessee maintains the accounts on cost centre basis for both Hanza Zone and Login Ads and furnished the breakup details but could not substantiate the claim with relevant vouchers before the Assessing Officer and was disallowed and Ld. AO passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 29.12.2009.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. AR argued the grounds and substantiated the facts with evidence for claim of deduction. Whereas, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim of municipal tax paid as the assessee has not produced any proof in the case of municipal tax and therefore Ld. CIT(A) due to non-availability of the evidence confirm the addition of Rs. 13,71,437/-.
Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D and cost centres expenditure of Login Ads and Hanza Zone.
Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, on the first disputed issue, the Ld. AR argued that the :- 4 -: ITA No.1230/Mds/2013 assessee has paid municipal tax of the property and claim deduction under income from house property and was disclosed under society maintenance charges Rs. 13,71,437/- and prayed for allowing the appeal. Whereas, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities
We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee is entitled for deduction of municipal tax in respect of properties situated at different places and also produced letter from society to whom tax have been paid and ignoring these facts the claim was disallowed. We are of the opinion that the municipal tax paid during the financial year has to be allowed to the assessee irrespective of the fact being outstanding of earlier years. Further, the assessee should be provided an opportunity to substantiate its genuineness towards claim and therefore in the interest of justice, we remit the disputed issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify and examine the municipal tax paid along with the society maintenance charges before passing the order on merits.
6.1 On the second disputed issue, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D Rs. 7,25,801/-.
The Ld. AR supported the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D which are applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 and further submitted that the :- 5 -: ITA No.1230/Mds/2013 assessee has not incurred any expenditure on earning dividend income. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record. The provisions of section 14A and Rule 8D are mandatorily applicable from assessment year 2008-09, whereas, the present case pertains to assessment year 2002-03. Accordingly, we follow the coordinate bench decision and Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Simson in TCA No. 2621 of 2016 dated 15.10.2012 and Direct the Assessing Officer to make disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at 2% of exempted income.
6.2 The Last disputed issue being the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure of cost centres Login Ads and Hanza Zone. The Ld. AR substantiated his submissions on cost centres and the expenditure incurred under various heads like bonus, car expenses, conveyance allowance, HRA etc., and prayed to provide an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer along with material evidence. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of expenses before allowing the claim and we remit the disputed issue for examination/verification to the file of Assessing Officer in respect of cost centres as submitted before us and allow the appeal for statistical purpose.
:- 6 -: ITA No.1230/Mds/2013
In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 20th day of June, 2017 at Chennai.