2021 (6) TMI 453 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on expenses, interest, and provisions, directs verification of amortization.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on disallowance of expenses under Section 14A r.w. Rule ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT(A) has held that the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year - HELD THAT:- Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income and not otherwise. We therefore affirming the CIT(A)’s findings deleting the impugned disallowance. The Revenue fails in its first substantive ground therefore. Addition of interest on capital liabilities - Addition deleted in the CIT(A)’s order after admitting additional evidence - HELD THAT:- We notice first of all that the CIT(A) has not admitted any additional evidence at all so as to invoke rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It also emerges that the Assessing Officer has disallowed/added the impugned interest @50% going by the assessee’s depreciation claim to the said extent only than recording a clearcut finding on facts that the same had not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business u/s.37 of the Act. We further find that the Revenue is itself fair enough in not disputing the assessee’s entitlement to claim the impugned interest on merits to this effect as well. We thus affirm CIT(A)’s findings qua the instant second issue therefore. Disallowing provision made on financial restructuring package - CIT-A deleted the addition admitting additional evidence - HELD THAT:- DR is fair enough not being able to pinpoint any violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules since the CIT(A) has not admitted any additional evidence filed at the assessee’s behest. Coupled with this, it has come on record that the assessee has itself disallowed in its computation, a sum qua expenses qua power purchase cost, finance and employee costs. This is what led the CIT(A) to delete the impugned disallowance/addition. We accordingly affirm the same since there is no rebuttal to correctness thereof coming from the Revenue side. Consumer contribution amortization disallowance - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has only directed the Assessing Officer to verify the relevant facts at the Assessing Officer’s end itself and therefore, the Revenue itself cannot be taken as an aggrieved party per se except the fact that such an exercise of lower appellate jurisdiction is no more exigible as per the Finance Act, 2001 omitting ‘or he may set aside’ w.e.f.01-06-2001. We thus accept the Revenue’s argument in principle but follow the very course of action ourselves and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the necessary facts pertaining to the instant issue. Issues:1. Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D2. Disallowance of interest on capital liabilities3. Disallowance of provision made on financial restructuring package4. Disallowance of consumer contribution amortizationIssue 1: Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D:The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing that Section 14A applies only to an assessee's exempt income. The ITAT referred to case law to support this interpretation, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on this ground.Issue 2: Disallowance of interest on capital liabilities:The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of interest on capital liabilities by the CIT(A). The ITAT analyzed the facts and found that the Assessing Officer had not provided clear evidence that the interest was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Additionally, the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. As a result, the ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the interest addition.Issue 3: Disallowance of provision made on financial restructuring package:The Revenue contested the reversal of the disallowance of provisions made on a financial restructuring package. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence, and the assessee had already disallowed a significant amount in its computation. As a result, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of the provision.Issue 4: Disallowance of consumer contribution amortization:The Revenue challenged the deletion of the disallowance of consumer contribution amortization by the CIT(A). The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the claimed amount was already included in depreciation. The ITAT partially accepted the Revenue's argument for statistical purposes and instructed the Assessing Officer to verify the relevant facts.In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, addressing each substantive ground raised by the Revenue and providing detailed analysis and reasoning for each issue. The judgment was pronounced on 11th June 2021 by the ITAT Hyderabad.