2019 (7) TMI 1545 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Reverses Disallowance, Emphasizes Reasonable Application of Law

Rakesh K. Patel (HUF) Versus DCIT, Circle-1 (2), Baroda

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found ... Disallowance u/s 14A r/w/Rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Application of sec. 14A is not automatic and it inheres in it the concept of reasonableness AO in the instant case is not found to have satisfied himself about incurring of any administrative expenses. The partnership firm is an independent entity and requires to run its affairs separately. The partners are holding the mutual agency in the partnership firm and unless the partners are shown to be drawing remuneration from the assessee concern and at the same time investing its attention in the partnership firm, there is no perceptible reason to disbelieve the assessee for not incurring in expenditure. We, thus, find no reason to thrust mechanical application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act in the given facts. The order of the CIT(A) is consequently set aside and the AO is directed to reverse the disallowance made in Rule 8D(2)(iii) r.w.s 14A of the Act. - Appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed exparte. Issues: Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) concerning the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14.2. The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 1,83,184 under section 14A r.w.r. 8D (2)(iii) of the IT Rules was challenged by the assessee. The assessee, a partner in a firm, did not receive interest on capital but earned Rs. 38,66,171 as a share of profit, exempt under section 10(2A) of the Act. The AO disallowed Rs. 1,83,184 being 0.5% of the average value of investment in the partnership firm, a decision affirmed by the CIT(A) in the first appeal.3. The assessee approached the Tribunal against the disallowance.4. As no one appeared for the assessee, the matter proceeded ex-parte.5. The Revenue's representative relied on the AO and CIT(A) orders.6. Upon review, it was noted that the assessee earned dividend income from mutual funds and claimed exempt income from the partnership firm. The investments did not call for separate administrative expenditure as mutual funds are managed by professionals who charge fees separately. Similarly, investments in the partnership firm would not attract disallowance unless shown by the AO that expenses were incurred for the firm and claimed in the assessee's accounts. The AO did not provide evidence of incurring administrative expenses, highlighting the need for reasonableness in applying section 14A. The partnership firm operates independently, and unless partners draw remuneration from the assessee and invest attention in the firm, there is no basis to doubt the assessee's expenditure. Thus, the mechanical application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) was deemed unwarranted, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing the AO to reverse the disallowance.7. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed ex-parte.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D (2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.