TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) of the Rules when no expenditure is incurred for earning the exempt income and assessing officer also not recorded satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the Appellant in respect of such expenditure? 2. Whether the provisions of Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Act would apply to the relevant assessment year?" 2. We have heard Mr. Parthasarathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue. 3. As such, we may not refer to the order of the Assessing Officer because the relevant portion of the reasoning of the assessing officer are already considered in the order of the CIT (Appeals). We may record that, the CIT (Appeals) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Is not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 67,090 as prior period expenses even though the liability crystallized during the previous year. b) Has overlooked the following decisions, which are relied up on and applicable to the Appellant's case. I). Marudhara Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (2001) 21 DTC 502 (Jod-Trib) (2001) 70 TTJ (Jod- Trib) 661. II). CIT v. H.P. State Forest Corporation (2010) 33 (I) ITCL 81 (HP-HC) : (2010) 320 ITR 170 (HP) : (2010) III). Haryana Sanitaryware Inds. (P) Ltd. V. ITO : ITA No.2028 (Del) of 2008, IV). Apollo Textiles Agency (2006) 283 ITR 591 (All) V). Goetze (India) Ltd. V. Dy. CIT (2008) 115 ITD 119 (Del-Trib). VI). CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....called for a remand report and the AO in the remand report highlighted as to why the claim of assessee for disallowance of only Rs. 4 lakhs is not acceptable. In our view, therefore, the earlier order of Tribunal will not be of any assistance to the plea of the assessee before us. 11. Even before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee was unable to explain as to why only a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs should be disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules as against a sum of Rs. 14,00,530. In our view, therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) has to be upheld. Accordingly ground No. II raised by the assessee is dismissed." 5. In our view, when the quantification of the amount of expenses of Rs. 4 lakhs is towards exempted income i s not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been discharged satisfactorily and thereafter, the assessing officer has proceeded to apply the formula provided under Section 8D(2)(iii) read with Section 14-A of the Act. 8. Discharge of the burden is essentially a question of fact. The authority up to the level of Tribunal has recorded finding of fact for non-discharge of burden by appellant-asses see. So far as applicability of Section 14-A read Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned when the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of proving quantification of the amount for disallowance towards exempted income, there would be hardly any scope for consideration of the matter as any substantial questions of law. The aforesaid is coupled with the aspects as referred by us hereinabove ....