Tribunal directs re-examination of disallowance under Section 14A with Rule 8D, emphasizes thorough consideration

Dy. CIT, Circle-11 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Hero Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd.

Dy. CIT, Circle-11 (1) New Delhi Versus M/s Hero Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2. Non-compliance by the assessee/respondent in appearing before the Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

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

The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially disallowed Rs. 2,76,36,280/- on the grounds that the assessee did not produce specific documents to demonstrate that the investments were not related to earning exempt income. The AO argued that the assessee incurred various expenses such as rental, personnel cost, depreciation, and communication cost, which were directly related to the volume of transactions, including those generating tax-free income.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the AO did not provide an objective analysis and relied on presumptions regarding possible common expenses. The CIT(A) emphasized that the legislative intent of Section 14A is to disallow only such expenses which are relatable to tax-exempt income and not on an ad hoc basis. The CIT(A) referred to several judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decisions in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, to support the deletion of the disallowance.

However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ignored the AO's observations regarding the expenses related to the turnover of mutual funds and other costs incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider these observations as relevant and failed to refer to any documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue and adjudicate it after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case.

2. Non-compliance by the Assessee/Respondent:

The Tribunal noted that the assessee/respondent did not appear for the hearing on multiple occasions, including 27.11.2019, 28.12.2020, 08.03.2021, and 14.07.2021. Despite the notices being duly dispatched to the assessee's address, there was continued non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to hear the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee/respondent due to the persistent non-compliance.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D and adjudicate it after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a proper and thoughtful consideration of the issue, taking into account the AO's observations and any documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The order was pronounced on 30th September, 2021.