KOLAY PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 638/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 January 2017AY 2011-20123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the assessee's accounts and record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the additional disallowance made by the AO was not warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee company earned dividend income and suo moto disallowed a certain amount under Section 14A. The AO, however, invoked Rule 8D and made an additional disallowance of Rs. 14,843/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly invoked Rule 8D without examining the assessee's accounts and recording satisfaction regarding the correctness of the suo moto disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM ]

Hearing: 30.12.2016Pronounced: 06.01.2016

ORDER

Per A. T. Varkey, JM

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1 Kolkata dt. 15.03.2016 for the AY 2011-12.

2.

The sole ground raised by the assessee is against the disallowance made by the AO invoking Section 14A Rule 8D on the exempt income.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company incorporated in the year 1946 and derives its income from house property. In the year under consideration the AO noted that the assessee earned tax free income of dividend of Rs. 22,30,957/-. According to the AO, as per Section 14A, any expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income is to be disallowed. According to him the correctness of the claim of the assessee is to be seen with reference to its accounts and the quantum of disallowance is to be worked out as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The AO noted that the Tax Auditor vide clause 17(a) of the Tax Audit Report has certified that Rs.2.29.118/- is not admissible u/S 14A of the Act. The AO acknowledges that the assessee has suo moto disallowed Rs. 2,29,118/-u/S 14A. However, according to the AO the correctness of the disallowance is to be examined under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and thereafter invoked Rule 8D and disallowed and worked out the disallowance at Rs. 2,43,961/-. Thereafter, taking note that the assessee has itself disallowed Rs. 2,29,118/-. The difference of Rs. 14,843/- was disallowed at the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 14,843/- the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the same. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 22,30,957/- and has suo moto disallowed Rs. 2,29,118/-. The AO though has accordingly stated that as per the provision of Sec. 14A any expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income is to be disallowed and that the correctness of the claim of the assessee is to be seen with reference to its account as thereafter invoked Rule 8D and made the computation and after working out the computation as per Rule 8D added Rs. 14,843/-.

4.

We find from the fact of the case in hand that the AO has not examined the account of the assessee and there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO regarding the correctness of the claim of the assessee and without doing the same he could not invoke Rule 8D of the Rules. While rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to the earning of exempt income, the AO has to indicate reason as to how he is not satisfied with the claim made by the assessee after examining the accounts of the assessee. From the fact that the case in hand, we notice that the AO has not considered the claim of the assessee and straightaway embarked upon computing disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules thereby making the order fragile and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the addition of Rs. 14, 843/- is not warranted and, therefore, his order be deleted.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 06.01.2017

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →