TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search (India) Ltd. in ITA No.6392 & 6112/Mum/11. Ld. AR has placed before us a copy of the said order which is dated 29/11/2012 in ITA No.6285/Mum/11 and a copy was also given to Ld. DR. 3. We have heard both parties on this issue. Since similar matter was decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in aforementioned order dated 29/11/2012 for assessment year 2008-09 and facts and circumstances are same, respectfully following the same we restore this issue to the file of AO with similar directions. For the sake of completeness the said order is reproduced below: "The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) 9, Mumbai, dated 05.07.2011, wherein the following grounds have been raised: 1. The Learned CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of ₹ 28,31,068/- u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D over and above disallowance already made the appellant of ₹ 35,63,498/-. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed disallowance of ₹ 28,31,068/- u/s 14A r w Rule 8D. 3. The disallowance of ₹ 28,31,068/- u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D requires to be deleted. 2. The facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture & export and embroidery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds/objections raised by both the parties of the litigation revolves around the applicability of the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 and the section 14A of the Act. We have perused the above extracted portion from the impugned order and find the AO is directed to work out the disallowances as per the decision of the jurisdictional High Court after affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard." We do not find any mistake in the said direction of the CIT (A). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the CIT(A) has not addressed to the arguments raised by assessee. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is deficient to the extent that he has not addressed to the issues i.e. if the disallowance are called for at all when the assessee has not spent any expenditure what so ever for earning of the impugned dividend income and if the expenditure at all be disallowed in view of the amendments to the section 14A by the Finance Act 2006. The order of the CIT(A) does not contain the reasons for rejections of the assessee's claims about the non incurring of any expenditure before invoking the Jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co Ltd (supra). The said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the dividend, the NAV of the mutual fund which was ₹ 17.23 per unit on March 24, 2000, stood reduced to ₹ 13.23 per unit on March 27, 2000. The assessee in the return claimed a deduction of ₹ 1.82 crores as exempt from tax under section 10(33) but also claimed a set off of the loss incurred on the sale of the units. This was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the transaction was in the nature of dividend stripping. The disallowance was deleted by the Tribunal whose decision was confirmed by the High Court. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the loss on the sale of the units could be considered as expenditure in relation to earning dividend income exempt under section 10(33) and hence disallowable under section 14A. The Revenue claimed that the differential between the purchase and the sale price of the units constituted expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning tax free income and was liable to be disallowed under section 14A. The Supreme Court explained the reason for the insertion of section 14A thus (pages 15 and 16) : "The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious attempt on the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of the earning of taxable income can be allowed. That section 14A broadens the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income is evident from the following observations of the Supreme Court (page 17) : "The theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable has, in principle, been now widened under section 14A. Reading section 14 in juxtaposition with sections 15 to 59, it is clear that the words `expenditure incurred' in section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc., in respect of which allowances are provided for (see sections 30 to 37)." On the facts, the Supreme Court held that an expenditure is a payout which relates to disbursement. A pay back to the assessee was not an expenditure incurred within the meaning of section 14A. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Walfort is also significant on another aspect of the controversy in the present case. Section 14 of the Act specifies five heads of income which are chargeable to tax. Income to be taxable must fall for classification under one of those five heads, namely, (i) Salaries ; (ii) Income from house property ; (iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." (The proviso was inserted earlier by the Finance Act of 2002 with retrospective effect from May 11, 2001) Under sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Under the proviso, it has been stipulated that nothing in the section will empower the Assessing Officer, for an assessment year beginning on or before April 1, 2001, either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154. The circumstances in which the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced by an amendment have been adverted to in a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated December 28, 2006 (Circular No. 14 of 2006-[2006] 288 ITR (St.)9). The circular notes that in the existing provisions of section 14A no method for computing the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income had been provided. As a result there was a considerable dispute between taxpayers and the Revenue on the method of determining such expenditure. In this background, sub-section (2) was inserted so as to make it mandatory for the Assessing Officer to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form p....