2025 (11) TMI 276 - AT - Income Tax

Taxpayer wins on s.14A: No disallowance where no expenditure incurred and no dividend received for the year under review

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the taxpayer's appeal under s.14A, finding no disallowance was warranted because the taxpayer did not incur any cost in acquiring ... Deduction u/s 14A - Proof of cost incurred on earning exempt income - HELD THAT:- The assessee invested in two entities i.e. Creative Infocity Ltd. and in Gujarat Information Technology Fund of Gujarat Venture Finance Ltd. and the assessee has not incurred any cost for purchasing the shares of Creative Infocity Ltd. as well as Gujarat Government has given the loan which was interest free subsequent to March 2001 and therefore there was no payment of interest for 13% per annum and thus there was no cost incurred in both these investments and therefore the assessee has rightly claimed 14A deduction, AR. placed reliance on the decision of Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] specifically on this issue itself is squarely applicable in assessee’s case as mere in respect of exempt income is not sufficient to trigger the disallowance u/s. 14A. In the present assessee’s case, the assessee has demonstrated that the assessee has not at all incurred any cost as such and in fact has not received any dividend in this particular year. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority is excusable where departmental communication was sent to an employee's email address and the employee was implicated in misappropriation, thereby constituting a genuine reason for delay. 2. Whether expenditure disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted where (a) exempt income (dividend/interest from specified investments) was reported but no expense allocable to exempt income was actually incurred by the assessee, and (b) no exempt dividend was received in the relevant year. 3. Whether mere existence or reporting of exempt income in the return, without evidence of expenditure incurred to earn such exempt income, is sufficient to attract disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal where departmental communication was sent to an employee's email and employee committed misappropriation Legal framework: Principles governing condonation of delay in appeals require consideration of reasons for delay and whether delay is genuine and beyond appellant's control; appellate discretion exercised on facts and natural justice considerations. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied ordinary principles of condonation of delay (no specific precedent was relied upon or overruled in the judgment). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted that communications were sent to an email ID of an employee who was responsible for receipt of departmental notices; that employee had been involved in misappropriation of company funds; as a result the assessee-company did not receive or act upon notices in time. The Tribunal treated the misappropriation and negligent handling of communications by an employee as a genuine cause outside the direct control of the corporate appellant and sufficient to justify condonation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay caused by diversion/misappropriation of departmental communication to an employee implicated in misconduct can constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in appeals; Obiter - none on this point. Conclusions: The delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was condoned as genuine and attributable to circumstances beyond the appellant-company's control arising from employee misappropriation and negligence. Issue 2 - Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D where no expense was incurred and no dividend received in the relevant year Legal framework: Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income; Rule 8D provides methodology for computing disallowance where such expenditure cannot be directly identified - commonly involves apportionment based on average investments/total assets and interest costs. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed and applied the legal principle established by a High Court decision (referred to in the record) holding that mere existence of exempt income is not sufficient to trigger mandatory 14A disallowance where there is demonstration that no expenditure was incurred to earn such income. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined factual matrix showing investments in two entities where (i) no cost/interest expense was incurred in acquiring the relevant shares/units (one investment obtained without cost and another financed by interest-free loan), and (ii) no dividend income was received in the year under consideration. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the exempt receipts were reported but no expenses relatable to earning exempt income were incurred, and that the return's reporting error did not translate into an entitlement to disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal held that Rule 8D methodology cannot be mechanically applied to impose disallowance when the assessee demonstrates absence of expenditure and absence of relevant exempt receipts in the year. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the assessee demonstrates that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income and no exempt dividend was received in the assessment year, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not justified; Obiter - application of Rule 8D requires factual basis of expenditure or interest cost to be apportioned and cannot operate as an automatic addition merely because exempt income is reported. Conclusions: Section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance was not sustainable on the facts; the Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits and deleted the impugned addition relating to purported 14A disallowance. Issue 3 - Whether mere reporting of exempt income in return triggers Section 14A disallowance absent evidence of expenditure Legal framework: Section 14A targets expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income; jurisprudence requires causal connection between expenditure and exempt income; Rule 8D supplies computation where direct identification is not possible. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the principle that mere in respect of exempt income is insufficient to automatically invite disallowance (following the High Court reasoning cited by the assessee). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished between a reporting anomaly in the return and the substantive question of whether expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. It concluded that a mere reporting of exempt income (or a clerical/misreporting error) does not establish that any expense has been incurred which ought to be disallowed under Section 14A; the onus lies on the Revenue to demonstrate existence of expenditure or interest cost relatable to exempt income or to justify apportionment under Rule 8D on proper facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - mechanical disallowance under Section 14A cannot be sustained solely on the ground that exempt income appears in the return; disallowance requires evidential foundation of expenditure or interest cost related to exempt income; Obiter - procedural fairness requires AO to make enquiries/verification before making such disallowance (as raised in the grounds). Conclusions: The Tribunal held that mere inclusion/reporting of exempt income in the return, without evidence of expenditure or interest cost, does not justify disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D; the addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted. Cross-references Issues 2 and 3 are interrelated: the Tribunal's finding that no expenditure was incurred (Issue 2) underpins the conclusion that mere reporting of exempt income does not trigger disallowance (Issue 3). Issue 1 (condonation) is dispositive of the procedural entitlement to have the substantive appeal heard on merits and is therefore connected to the Tribunal's adjudication on Issues 2-3.