TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs. 2013-14 & 2014- 15. 2. The grievances raised being common, both the cases were heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. We shall first take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 2594/Ahd/2017 concerning AY 2013-14. ITA No. 2594/Ahd/2017-AY-2013-14 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,57,697 under Section 14A to the regular income in as much as the assessee has sufficient interest free funds and that the question of disallowance under Section 14A does not arise. 1.1 The appellant says and summit that the onus is on the AO to prove that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esumption would arise in favour of the assessee that own funds have been utilized for investments giving rise to exempt income in the light of long line of judicial precedents including; (i) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 370 (Guj), (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) & (iii) CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). As regards administrative expenditure, the learned AR submitted that only reasonable disallowance should be made for an exempt income of Rs. 10,34,094/- and estimations of Rs. 1,18,621/- by applying family under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is excessive and uncalled for. 6. The learned DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 7. In the light of the fact that own f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 as per approved valuer report dated 20.03.2008 stands at Rs. 4,88,88,200/-. It was submitted that out of 8429 sq.mtr. 3025 sq.mtr. were sold in FY 2010-11 concerning AY 2011-12. The balance land of 5404 sq.mtr. was used for construction of building project (Arun Vila Scheme) from FY 2008-09 onwards, The construction started in FY 2008-09. Some portions of the flats were ready during FY 2011-12 i.e. AY 2012-13. The assessee company sold three flats in FY 2012-13 concerning AY 2013-14 in question. The assessee submitted all the relevant details in the course of assessment proceedings for the preceding AY 2012-13. The assessee prepared the computation of income correctly for AY 2012-13. However, the assessee committed mistake during AY 2013-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position to say that it has been over assessed under the provisions of the Act or has been fastened with tax liability no legitimately due even on account of assessee's own mistake or otherwise, the Revenue is under duty to assess correct income. The learned AR accordingly sought appropriate orders in this regard. 11.2 The learned DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities without any further addition to it. 12. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the assessee carefully and perused the orders of the authorities below. We refer to the observations of the co-ordinate bench in para no.9 of the decision rendered in the case of Greeland Infracon (supra) which is reproduced hereunder: "9. It is trite that the authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed to entertain deviation in the claim originally made which may result in lower tax liability. The issue however has not been examined by the Revenue authorities on facts. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of submissions to be made by the assessee with factual evidences before AO. It will thus be open to the assessee to show before the AO that it was over assessed incorrectly or subjected to higher tax in any manner owing to its own mistake. The AO shall determine the issue in accordance with law after giving fair opportunity to the assessee. Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, appeal ....