2016 (12) TMI 1246 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT directs reassessment of income treatment, emphasizes direct relationship for disallowance

Yama Finance Ltd Versus Income Tax Officer, Coy. Circle-18 (1), New Delhi

The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing reassessment of the treatment of income as business income instead of Capital Gains and the ... Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- It is seen that the assessee has claimed that expenditure amounting to ₹ 31,154/- had been incurred in relation to earning of exempt income. The Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence on record to relate the expenditure incurred with the amount of exempt income on one hand and relate the exempt income to the investments yielding exempt income on the other. He simply proceeded to calculate the disallowance under Rule 8D. In the absence of such evidence, it was patently wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer to compute disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by mechanically applying Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer has adopted the formula for estimating expenditure on the basis of investments but the justification for calculating the average investment is missing. Disallowance u/s 14A was made without due deliberation and analysis by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT (A) was also patently wrong in confirming the disallowance. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for calculating the quantum of disallowance afresh after considering all the aspects as envisaged in section 14A and Rule 8D after giving due opportunity to the assessee to represent its case. The grounds pertaining to the issue of disallowance u/s 14A are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Treatment of amount as business income instead of Capital Gains.2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act.Issue 1: Treatment of amount as business income instead of Capital Gains:The appellant contested the order treating an amount as business income instead of Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer relied on the company's authorization to carry out securities transactions and previous case law to conclude that the transactions constituted business income under section 28 of the Act. The appellant argued that the investments were for capital gains, not business purposes. The ITAT acknowledged a previous High Court ruling in favor of the appellant for a similar issue in a prior assessment year. Consequently, the ITAT directed the matter back to the Assessing Officer to allow the appellant's claim based on the High Court's decision.Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act:The appellant challenged the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer calculated the disallowance without establishing a direct link between the expenditure and the exempt income earned. The ITAT emphasized that for disallowance under section 14A, there must be a clear nexus between the expenditure and the income not forming part of the total income. The ITAT referenced a High Court case to highlight the importance of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction with the correctness of the expenditure claim before applying Rule 8D. As the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning for the disallowance, the ITAT directed a reassessment of the disallowance after considering all relevant aspects of section 14A and Rule 8D, granting the appellant an opportunity to present its case. The ITAT allowed the grounds related to the disallowance u/s 14A for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing a reassessment of both the treatment of income and the disallowance under section 14A. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a direct relationship between expenditure and exempt income for disallowance purposes, emphasizing the need for thorough analysis and justification by the Assessing Officer.