Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, issue remanded for further examination under Income-tax Act.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of the order was condoned by the Tribunal as unintentional, ensuring substantial justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of order.

Summary:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The appellant challenged the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to the exempted income earned from investments. The Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 to make a disallowance of Rs. 14,58,76,907. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance citing the rule's provisions and a Third Member Bench decision. The appellant contended that there was no deliberate attempt to delay the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the delay was due to negligence but not for malicious intent. The appellant's counsel argued for a restricted disallowance based on certain calculations. The Tribunal noted that once the Assessing Officer questions the claim made by the assessee, Rule 8D must be applied. However, if the disallowance exceeds the actual expenses, it should be restricted. As the appellant admitted to incurring expenses for earning exempted income, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

Issue 2: Delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of order
The appellant explained the delay in filing the appeal was due to not receiving the order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in a timely manner. The Departmental Representative argued that the order was uploaded on the e-filing account, a valid mode of service under the Income-tax Rules. The Tribunal acknowledged the negligence in not noticing the order promptly but condoned the delay as unintentional, ensuring substantial justice.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further examination in accordance with the law.

---