Case Law Details
In this case, assessee has earned by way of dividends a sum of Rs. 5,45,58,685/-, which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and thus the same does not form part of the total income under the Act. In the computation of income, assessee having regard to section 14A of the Act, determined the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income at Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has not found it acceptable and has instead determined the amount of expenditure in relation to such income by applying rule 8D of the Rules. Ostensibly, the action of the Assessing Officer cannot be upheld unless he has complied with the pre-requisite of invoking rule 8D of the Rules, namely, recording of an objective satisfaction with regard to the claim of the assessee that an expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/- has been incurred in relation to the exempt income, is incorrect. In order to examine the aforesaid compliance with the pre- condition, we have perused the para 4 to 4.2 of the assessment order and find that no reasons have been advanced as to why the dis allowance determined by the assessee was found to be incorrect, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The only point made by the Assessing Officer is to the effect that “the said dis allowance was not acceptable”. In-fact, we find that the assessee made detailed submissions to the Assessing Officer, which have been reproduced by the CIT(A) in para 3.2.1 of his order. As per the assessee, the determination of dis allowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 5,00,000/- was based on the employee costs and other costs involved in carrying out this activity. Further, assessee also explained that the shares which have yielded exempt income were acquired long back out of own funds and no borrowings were utilized. The mutual fund investments were claimed to be also made out of surplus funds. It was specifically claimed that no fresh investments have been made during the year under consideration in shares yielding exempt income. All the aforesaid points raised by the assessee have not been addressed by the Assessing Officer and the same have been brushed aside by making a bland statement that the dis allowance is “not acceptable”. Therefore, in our view, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any objective satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, which is mandatorily required in terms of section 14A(2) of the Act and therefore his action of invoking rule 8D of the Rules to compute the impugned disallowance is untenable. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set-aside on this aspect and the Assessing Officer is directed to retain the dis allowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, as returned by the assessee.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE
ITA No. 1733/PN/2012
(Assessment Year : 2008-09)
Kalyani Steels Ltd.,
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Very Useful.
A must read for all dealing with Investments.