2018 (2) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed for disallowance u/s 14-A. Tribunal upholds CIT (A)'s decision.

M/s. Saryu Properties and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT-CC 4 (2), Mumbai

The appellant's appeal challenging the disallowance u/s 14-A was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that ... Disallowance u/s. 14A in the reassessment order - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is quite correct in holding that he was not in a position to entertain any such ground. We find that the issue relating to disallowance u/s. 14A was in the original assessment order passed on 30.12.2013. Hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is quite correct that the assessee should have raised the ground against that decision in appeal against that assessment order. There is no question of condonation of delay as raised by the assessee as when the addition was not made in the reassessment order; there was no occasion for the CIT (Appeals) to consider the issue relating to disallowance u/s. 14A. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Admissibility of additional grounds relating to disallowance u/s 14-A.2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal on disallowance u/s 14-A.3. Deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14-A.4. Consideration of relevant facts by the CIT (A).5. Consideration of decisions by Jurisdictional High Court.6. Consideration of decisions on disallowance u/s 14(A) not exceeding exempted income.7. Admission of revised grounds of appeal in respect of disallowance u/s 14-A.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.06.2016 concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal primarily focused on the disallowance u/s 14-A. The appellant argued that the additional grounds related to this disallowance should have been admitted, but the CIT (A) rejected them, citing that the disallowance was part of the original assessment order dated 30.12.2013. The appellant also raised issues regarding the delay in filing the appeal and the deletion of the disallowance amount.2. The appellant further contended that the CIT (A) failed to consider crucial facts, such as the investment in shares and partnership firm capital being less than available funds, and the absence of any exempted income received during the relevant year. Additionally, the appellant referenced specific decisions by the Jurisdictional High Court, arguing for the deletion of the disallowance.3. The CIT (A) examined the grounds raised by the appellant and noted that the disallowance u/s 14-A was not part of the reassessment order under dispute but was made in the original assessment order dated 30/12/2013. Since no appeal was filed against the original assessment order, the CIT (A) concluded that the issue had already reached finality before the reassessment under section 147. Consequently, the additional grounds related to disallowance u/s 14-A were deemed inadmissible and rejected.4. The appellant challenged the CIT (A)'s decision before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the disallowance u/s 14-A was not part of the reassessment order being appealed. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that the appellant should have raised the issue against the original assessment order where the disallowance was initially made. The Tribunal found no basis for condonation of delay or entertaining the disallowance issue in the current appeal, ultimately dismissing the appellant's appeal.5. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of raising relevant grounds against the correct assessment order and affirmed the CIT (A)'s ruling regarding the inadmissibility of additional grounds related to disallowance u/s 14-A. The appeal by the appellant was consequently dismissed, upholding the order of the CIT (A).This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the decisions rendered by the authorities involved.