TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany admitting a total income of Rs. 371,87,60,340/-. The case was selected was scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection [CASS], and a notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the Assessee. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 30.03.2015. Subsequently, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 31.03.2017 on the ground that there is a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons for reopening by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 07.09.2017 recorded by the Assessing Officer is as under: "On verification of records, it is found that the Assessee Bank made a disallowance of Rs. 24,93,305/- u/s.14A. It is observed that the disallowance u/s.14A is to be calculated as per the methodology pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Average value of total assets in the previous year 2011 - 2012 1,82,13,25,95,000 A*B/C = 3,37,31,452 One half percent of the average investment during the previous year 2011 - 2012 24,93,305 ! + 2 + 3 3,62,24,757 The total disallowance u/s.14A read with rule 8D is Rs. 3,62,24,757/-, whereas the Assessee bank disallowed an amount of Rs. 24,93,305/- only. The disallowance of Rs. 3,37,31,452/- is to be disallowed u/s.14A read with Rule D. Hence, I have the reasons to believe that the income of Rs. 3,37,31,452/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2012 - 2013." 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opening is not valid. Further, the learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Maxopp Investment Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi reported in [2018] 402 ITR 640 held as "once the Assessee himself suo motu made a disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has to record proper satisfaction as to why the quantum of suo-motu disallowance is not correct. No satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, invoked Section 14A r.w.rule 8D which is not valid. 7. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act has not considered Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he methodology prescribed in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Further, it is found that the disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.R.8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 was not made by the Assessee during the computation of income as per the methodology mentioned in Section 14A of Rule 8D. 11. From the above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had recorded the satisfaction with the quantum of suo-motu disallowance made by the Assessee is not correct and not in accordance with the methodology provided in Rule 8D. Accordingly, by reopening the case of the Assessee, the assessment was completed. In our opinion, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer is in consonance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the M/s. Tenzing Match Works, Sivakasi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Virudhunagar (supra), we have examined the entire facts and we find that the facts are entirely different from the facts involved in the present appeal. In this case, tangible material is clearly available to the Assessing Officer and therefore the Assessing Officer validly reopened the assessment. In view of the above, we upheld the reopening made by the Assessing Officer u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 15. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessee is having more own funds than the borrowed funds. Therefore, the presumption goes in favour of the Assessee and no interest disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax (Appeals) and by keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the Assessee to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer. In so far as the application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.R.8(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is concerned, this argument is neither placed before the Assessing Officer nor before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This argument is placed for the first-time before us. 20. In our opinion, this issue is also to be examined by considering the relevant facts and materials. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we remit back ....