TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessment year involved is 2008-09 and the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 2nd August, 2011. 2. The relevant material facts are like this. The assessee is an individual and derives income from business capital gains and other sources. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 7,87,452/-, and that the assessee has not offered any disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. It was also noted that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee has shown interest payment of Rs. 66,89,419/-. It was in this backdrop that the assessee was asked to compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....452/-. It was also pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not shown any nexus between the borrowed fund and investment in shares and that the computation on which the Assessing Officer as relied was simply submitted in response to the requisition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee further pointed out that the investment in shares was made by the appellant from own surplus fund and disallowance of interest was, therefore, not justified. Ld. CIT(Appeals), however, was not persuaded the arguments in his order. He simply rejected the submissions by observing as follows :- "5. I have perused the assessment order and considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. I do not find merit in the submissions. I find fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enditure has been debited as such to the Profit & Loss A/c. Ld. counsel submits that in this view of the matter, no disallowance can be made under section 14A on the facts of the case. 5. Shri K.N. Jana, ld. Sr. D.R. objects to the submissions of the assessee. He submits that the assessee on his own had offered disallowance before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, it is not open to the assessee to retract from the said stand and contended that no disallowance was warranted at all. Our attention was invited to page 2 of the assessment order, wherein the computation was given by the assessee was reproduced. Our attention is further invited to the observations made by the ld. CIT(Appeals), wherein it is stated that once the assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the case of SAIL VSP VR Employees Association -vs.- Union of India & Ors. (supra) has explained this principle in law as follows :- "17. The question of estoppel because of option exercised with eyes open to the subsequent modification cannot be sustained. What is not otherwise taxable cannot become taxable because of admission of the assessee. Nor there can be any waiver of the right otherwise admissible to the assessee in las. The chargeability is not dependent on the admission of or waiver by the assessee. Chargeability is dependent on the charging section, which needs to be strictly construed. Referring to the decision in CIT -vs.- Bhaskar Mitter (1994) 73 Taxman 437 (Cal) at p. 442 (para 8), we had occasion to so hold in....