Tribunal directs reassessment under Income Tax Act, emphasizing proper procedures and assessee's contentions

M/s JIK Industries Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (2), Mumbai

M/s JIK Industries Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues:
Confirmation of disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order confirming the disallowance of Rs.29,84,949 under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowance as the assessee had made investments for earning exempt income. In the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee argued that no expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend income and that the investments were incidental to the business. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance invoking section 14A. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record any dissatisfaction with the claim that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income and directly applied Rule 8D. The Tribunal, citing the case of 'Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.', emphasized that Rule 8D can be applied only if the assessee's method is unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to re-examine the contentions of the assessee. The AO was instructed to call for any necessary records or evidence and assess the income accordingly if satisfied with the assessee's contentions. If not, the AO must record dissatisfaction with reasoning before resorting to Rule 8D. The assessee was directed to cooperate by providing necessary details.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for the AO to follow proper procedures and consider the contentions raised by the assessee regarding the disallowance under section 14A.