Case Law Details

Case Name : Pradeep Khanna Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : ITA 953/2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/08/2016
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4243) Delhi High Court (1295)

1. The relevant facts are that the assessee had reported a tax exempt dividend income of Rs. 10,87,898/- and he had, however, not claimed any expenditure for earning that income. Purporting to apply the statutory disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, the AO ascribed a sum of Rs. 1,21,805/- and added it back to the taxable income. The assessee contends that the  methodology adopted and entire approach of the revenue is foul. In this connection it is urged that the bulk of the tax exempted income was earned interest which was credited to the bank account and also with respect to the dividends earned went straight into the personal bank account without the interaction of any special personnel. The revenue on the other hand urged that the assessee carries on business and in the course of such business he engaged an accountant who was also tasked with the job of looking after the accounts and investments which yielded a sum of Rs. 10,87,898/-.

2. The assesee relied upon the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Taikisha Engineering Private Limited 370 ITR 338 (Del) and the ITAT’s decision for a previous year i.e. Pradeep Khanna vs. ITO Ward-23 (1) New Delhi ITA No.1250/Del/2014.

3. In Taikisha Engineering Private Limited’s case (supra) this court had after analysing Section 14A and Rule 8D (of the Income Tax Rules) held as follows:

“Sub-rule (1) categorically and significantly states that the Assessing Officer having regard to the account of the assessee and on not being satisfied with the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee or claim that no expenditure was incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, can go on to determine the disallowance under subrule (2) to Rule 8D of the Rules. Sub-rule (2) will not come into operation until and unless the specific precondition in sub-rule (1) is satisfied. Thus, section 14A (2) of the Act and rule 8D (1) in unison and affirmatively record that the computation or disallowance made by the assessee or claim that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income must be examined with reference to the accounts, and only and when the explanation/claim of the assessee is not satisfactory, computation under subrule (2) to rule 8D of the Rules is to be made.”

4. In the present case, we notice that the AO has not analysed objectively in terms of the decision in Shah. It was firstly incumbent upon him to in fact examine the accounts closely and determine if at all any expenditure could be ascribed to the tax exempt dividend/interest earned by the assessee. If indeed the tax exempted income was earned without the interference of any employee but rather through the solicitation and advertisement of the bank the question of attributing any expenditure cannot arise at all.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (27874)
Type : Judiciary (12057)
Tags : high court judgments (4558) rule 8D (101) Section 14A (278)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts