TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o, and he made reference to this decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 3. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.9.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 13,28,278/-. This return was filed electronically. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld.AO observed that as per rule 8D(2) the assessee was required to disallow 0.5% of the average value of the investment on account of administrative expenses. He found that the assessee has not calculated the disallowance under section 14A with help of this formula, rather under the head administrative expenses, it has disallowed a sum of 6,275/-. Thus, the AO took note of the investment and applied formula. He worked out a disallowance at Rs. 2,97,347/-. Dissatisfied with the disallowance the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. But the ld.CIT(A) concurred with the AO and confirmed the disallowance. 4. Before me, it was contended by the ld.counsel for the assessee that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) reads as under: "6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The substantive question arises in the Revenue's appeal is to ascertain the correctness of the action of the CIT(A) in refusing to endorse the action of the AO for resorting to disallowance under s.14A of the Act. Two broad issues emerges in the context of the case; (i) whether the disallowance under s.14A is maintainable where admittedly no exempt income i.e. dividend was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year and (ii) whether the CIT(A) was justified in going beyond the return of income and remove the disallowance which the assessee itself has made while filing the return of income. In other words, whether the action of the CIT(A) in bringing down the income returned by the assessee and granting relief on the issues not raised at the time of filing original return of income or by way of revised return at a subsequent stage is justified in law or not. 7. The first issue framed above appears quite simple as we see. While adjudicating the issue, we take note of CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11/02/2014 which seeks to emphasize that all ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in the absence of any formal revised return. The CIT(A) has discussed this aspect in very great detail in para 2.5 to 2.28 of its order. We are not inclined to reiterate the findings of the CIT(A). However, we fully endorse the observations of the CIT(A) which essentially holds that the mistake or inadvertence on the part of the assessee whereby an income not taxable has been wrongly offered for tax, will not operate as any kind of estoppel against the assessee and regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not. Once the assessee is in a position to show that it has been over assessed under the provisions of the Act even on account of assessee's own mistake or otherwise, the Revenue is under duty to assess correct income. 9. It is trite that the authorities under the Act are under sacrosanct obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, mis-conception or not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to ensure that only legitimate tax dues are collected. This is the view which flows from innumerable judgments including CIT vs. Shel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above proposition, the ITAT in the case of Greeland Infracon (supra) has already taken note of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti Vs. CIT, 276 ITR 165 as well as CIT Vs. Shelly Products, 261 ITR 367 (SC). The Tribunal has further made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the finding extracted (supra). Apart from the above, I am of the view that a court decides a dispute between the parties. The cause can involve decision on facts. It can also involve a decision on a point of law. Both may have bearing on the ultimate result of the case. When a court interprets a provision, it decides as to what is the meaning and effect of the words used by the Legislature. It is a declaration regarding the statute. In other words, the judgment declares as to what the Legislature had said at the time of the promulgation of the law. The declaration is - This was the law. This is the law. This is how the provision shall be construed. In the decision of Corrtech Energy (supra) the Hon'ble Gujarat High court has construed section 14A that in case there is no exempt income to an assessee, then no expenses can....