2020 (12) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee prays to seek rectification of the order passed by this Tribunal on 08/07/2020 on the following aspects:- (a) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the ld. AO is not required to record satisfaction with regard to the claim made by the assessee that no expenses were incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income ? (b) Without prejudice to the aforesaid claim, this Tribunal having rejected the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, whether it was justified to disallow 25% of certain specified expenses without taking recourse to the earlier Tribunal decisions passed in assessee's own case ? (c) Whether the questions raised in (a) and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowance made u/s.14A of the Act in his case. 2.1. We find that the ld. AO with regard to the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act, had made the following observations for the A.Y.2008-09 in his assessment order:- "During the course of assessment proceedings the Authorized Representative of the assessee was asked as to why provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D should not be applied as the assessee has exempt income. In response thereto, the A.R. of the assessee has argued that disallowance u/s 14A should not be made in this case as the assessee has not incurred any expenditure whatsoever to earn the exempt income. The A.R. of the assessee further stated that the investments are looked after by the father of the assessee to whom he h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules could not be carried out in the instant case as it results in absurdity, ought to have restricted the disallowance to Rs. 50,000/- in consonance with the original disallowance made by the ld. AO himself in proceedings for A.Y.2008-09 u/s.143(3) of the Act which was also in line with the decision taken by this Tribunal up to A.Y.2007-08 in assessee's own case. 3. The ld. DR per contra, vehemently argued that there was no mistake at all warranting rectification u/s.254(2) of the Act. 4. We find on perusal of records and log book that admittedly assessee had infact made reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and the same had not been considere....