Tribunal ruling on Revenue's appeal: Section 14A upheld, Rs. 2 crore entry deemed bogus.

The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance under Section 14A subject to verification by the AO. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the addition of Rs. 2 crores as a bogus accommodation entry, thereby restoring the AO's order on the latter issue. The order was pronounced on 11.12.2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Addition of Rs. 2 crores as bogus accommodation entry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:

The primary issue revolves around the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D, which pertains to the expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income, i.e., exempt income. The assessee had investments in shares amounting to Rs. 22,33,60,073 but did not earn any dividend income during the previous year, hence did not make any disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,37,60,144 under Section 14A, which was subsequently deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], citing the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Delight Enterprises, which held that no disallowance under Section 14A should be made when there is no exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., which emphasized that the provisions of Section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify if the assessee had earned any exempt income. If no exempt income was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A would be required, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.

2. Addition of Rs. 2 crores as bogus accommodation entry:

The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 2 crores as a bogus accommodation entry. The AO disallowed Rs. 2 crores debited under 'Land Development' expenses paid to M/s. Maginot Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., based on the admission of bogus accommodation entries by Shri Balakrishna Goenka during a search and seizure action, where he stated that the payments were accommodation entries for generating cash by debiting bogus expenses.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the appellant did not claim any deduction for land development expenses or depreciation. The CIT(A) held that disallowance presupposes a claim of deduction, which was absent in this case. Furthermore, the CIT(A) found that the payments were made from regular bank accounts and were properly recorded in the books, thus the addition was unwarranted.

However, the Tribunal referred to a similar case, M/s. JSW Steel (Salav) Limited vs. DCIT, where the identical issue for the same assessment year was decided against the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the accommodation entries were obtained for the assessee company and upheld the AO's disallowance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order, confirming the addition of Rs. 2 crores as bogus accommodation entry.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal partly, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance under Section 14A subject to verification by the AO, and reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on the addition of Rs. 2 crores, thereby restoring the AO's order on the latter issue. The order was pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2017.

---