Tribunal orders reassessment of expenditure disallowance under Income Tax Act

The tribunal remanded the case back to the assessing officer, directing a reevaluation of the disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessing officer was instructed to objectively assess the correctness of the assessee's claim before applying rule 8D, following the precedent set in the 'Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.' case. The assessing officer was required to provide reasons for any dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim and allow the assessee to present all relevant facts. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:

1. Disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2008-09, specifically regarding the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 10,49,901 made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D. The assessing officer noted that the assessee had not apportioned any expenditure in relation to the exempt income of Rs. 8,78,069 received as dividends. The assessing officer disagreed with the assessee's working of administrative and managerial expenses but accepted the claim of no interest expenditure for earning exempt income. Consequently, the assessing officer disallowed Rs. 10,49,901 based on rule 8D.(iii) of the Income Tax Rules.

During the appeal before the CIT(A), the representative of the assessee argued that the assessing officer did not provide reasoning for rejecting the assessee's self-assessed disallowance of Rs. 4,99,614. However, the CIT(A) upheld the assessing officer's disallowance under rule 8D(iii) for A.Y. 2008-09. The tribunal considered the parties' submissions and referred to the case of 'Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.' where it was established that the assessing officer must objectively assess the correctness of the claim made by the assessee regarding expenditure in relation to exempt income before resorting to rule 8D.

The tribunal found that the assessing officer did not follow the guidelines of objective satisfaction as mandated by the 'Godrej & Boyce' case while making the disallowance. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the assessing officer with directions to allow the assessee to present all relevant facts and examine the computation made by the assessee. The assessing officer was instructed to record reasons for any dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before resorting to rule 8D. The assessee was directed to cooperate by providing necessary details. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

---