2016 (1) TMI 1092 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal orders fresh adjudication on share application money & partially allows appeal on interest expenditure.

Dy. CIT, Circle 6 (1), New Delhi Versus M/s. Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd. (Now known as Minda Investment Ltd.)

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the addition of share application money under section 68 of ... Disallowance u/s 68 - Held that:- Certain investigations have been done by the A.O. Evidences have been gathered by the A.O. in support of the addition made by him. The deletion by the Ld.CIT(A) of this addition, on the ground that these evidences were not confronted to the assessee, was not proper. When the inspection report can be put to the assessee by the Ld.CIT(A), other evidences should have also been put to the assessee by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee contends that all the information and material obtained by the A.O. has to be put to him before coming to a conclusion. He further contends that the assessee has furnished whatever material it could, and as considerable time has elapsed no further burden should be put on the assessee to furnish any further evidences. We find force in these submissions of the assessee. The A.O. in our view should not put further burden on the assessee. This case should be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. We issue the following directions to be followed by the A.O. (a) The assessee should be confronted with the information and material based on which the AO made this addition and there after pass a speaking order after considering the contentions of the assessee. (b) Similarly, in case the A.O. chooses to rely on the statement of any person, copies of the same should be furnished to the assessee and opportunity to cross examine those witnesses of Revenue should be provided to the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- We agree with the finding of fact given by the Ld.CIT(A) that no part of interest expenditure can be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. As regards administrative expenses u/s 14A, we are of the opinion that disallowance of ₹ 1 lakh on adhoc basis would meet the interest of justice. Issues involved:1. Addition of share application money under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Deletion of addition under section 68 by the First Appellate Authority.3. Addition under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.4. Appeal against the order of the First Appellate Authority.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of share application money under section 68:The appellant, a company in the business of leasing, finance, and investments, received share application money from various companies. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised concerns regarding the genuineness of the transactions, citing defects in the evidence provided by the appellant. The AO conducted local inquiries and concluded that the share application money was a means of routing the appellant's own money through different entities. The AO made an addition under section 68 of the Act, considering the funds unexplained cash credits.Issue 2: Deletion of addition under section 68 by the First Appellate Authority:The First Appellate Authority deleted the addition under section 68, disagreeing with the AO's findings. The Authority found that the identity of the share applicants was established and that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rebut the evidence gathered by the AO. The Authority held that denial of this opportunity rendered the addition invalid.Issue 3: Addition under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:The AO made an addition under section 14A concerning disallowance of expenses related to earning exempt dividend income. The AO contended that due to the lack of details provided by the appellant, a proportionate disallowance was necessary. The AO's decision was based on various case laws and the working adopted for computing the disallowance.Issue 4: Appeal against the order of the First Appellate Authority:The Revenue appealed against the First Appellate Authority's decision to delete the additions under sections 68 and 14A. The Revenue argued that the Authority erred in deleting the additions, emphasizing discrepancies in the evidence provided by the appellant and the information gathered during investigations.In its final judgment, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the case to the AO for fresh adjudication on the addition under section 68. The Tribunal directed the AO to confront the appellant with all relevant information and provide an opportunity for cross-examination. Regarding the addition under section 14A, the Tribunal partially allowed the appellant's appeal, disagreeing with the disallowance of interest expenditure but allowing an ad hoc disallowance for administrative expenses.