2013 (6) TMI 248 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns order on IT Act section 14A, remands for fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the first appellate order that deleted the addition under section 14A of the IT Act, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer ... Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT (A) has not given plausible basis for estimating the administrative expenses at the rate of 0.1% of the total value of purchases and sales of the shares of the group companies at Rs.65,49,99,000/- resulting in disallowance of Rs.6,54,999/- against Rs.22,17,677/- made by the AO. Thus while setting aside the first appellate order in this regard remand the matter to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh keeping in view the decision of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court) and after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Issues:Challenge to first appellate order regarding deletion of addition under section 14A of the IT Act.Analysis:The revenue challenged the first appellate order solely on the ground that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made under section 14A of the IT Act. The AO had initially disallowed Rs.22,17,677 under section 14A, whereas the assessee had only disallowed Rs.1,00,000 in its return of income. The assessee contended that it did not have a demat account and that investments were made in liquid and ultra short funds with no entry/exit load. The exempt dividend income claimed was mainly from internal accruals, with minimal interest expenditure. The CIT (A) was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation and estimated administrative expenses at 0.1% of the total value of purchases and sales, resulting in a disallowance of Rs.6,68,937, providing relief of Rs.15,48,740.Analysis Continues:Referring to a recent decision, the Tribunal noted that even for the period before Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer should verify the correctness of the assessee's expenditure claims related to income not forming part of the total income. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) did not provide a plausible basis for estimating administrative expenses at 0.1% and remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in a relevant case. The Tribunal set aside the first appellate order and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the reasoning of the authorities, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision.