The facts emerging out of the assessment order are that the assessee is dealing in organic manure. For the year under consideration, the return of income declaring the total income of Rs.13,50,000/- was efiled on 30.10.2007. This case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee.
Notification No. 27/2012-Customs (ADD) Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/14/2011-DGAD, dated the 2nd May, 2012, published in Part I, Section 1 of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated the 2nd May, 2012, had initiated review, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
On the date of issue of notice under section 148 on 31-3-2008 by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, the earlier view taken by the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 143(3) on 31-3-2006 was supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (supra), and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 170.
Disallowance u/s 14A required a finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income, no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A could not stand. In the present case, as seen, the AO has not established any nexus whatsoever between the borrowed funds and the investment made. Therefore, Hero Cycles (supra), is applicable.
There is no requirement in Section 147 or Section 148 or Section 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued under Section 148. The requirement in Section 149(1) is only that the notice under Section 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation
Coming to the revenue’s objection that the assessee borrowed the funds from Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., in our view, this cannot constitute a factor as in none of the case laws or CBDT circular it has been held that borrowings will not be allowed in investment transactions. In our view the investment in capital assets also can be carried out by way of borrowed funds. There being no bar notified by the law, judicial pronouncement or CBDT Circular, we are unable to accept this view.
In the present case, the assessee is an employee and is in service of a company. He has salaried income. The assessee had also made purchases and had sold securities. He is maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. investment portfolio and trading portfolio. The Assessing Officer has admitted the said position in the assessment order.
The correct sequence, in our considered opinion, for making any disallowance u/s. 14A is to, firstly, examine the assessee’s claim of having incurred some expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempt income. If the AO gets satisfied with the same, then there is no need to compute disallowance as per Rule 8D. It is only when the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure having been incurred in relation to exempt income, that the mandate of Rule 8D will operate.
In the present case, the income computed as per the normal procedure was less than the income determined by legal fiction namely book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.
Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari, (2006) 283 ITR 338 (Guj.), after examining earlier judgments on the question has laid down several parameters’ tests which have to be applied to find out when income from transactions in shares’ securities should be treated as income from business or the gain which has to be taxed under the head “capital gains”. The parameters/tests are as under:-
