TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 of the Act dated 12.09.2013 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in the facts of the case in not appreciating the correct legal position that the earlier order dated 19.08.2013 of the ld.CIT(A) was an intermediately order only whereby, a remand report was called upon by the earlier ld. CIT(A) from the assessing officer and in absence of specific withdrawal of the powers of setting aside by the first appellate authority vide the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.06.2001, the earlier ld CIT(A) could not have restored the issue in hand to the AO without incorporating and considering the remand report hence the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2.1 to 3, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- '6.1. I have considered the facts of the case, order u/s. 143(3)/250 of the Act and appellant's submissions and I find that in the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 13-12-2011, the appellant's income was assessed at Rs. 41,69,680/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. Rs. 33,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- u/s. 14A of Act. In order u/s. 143(3)/250 dated 12-09-2013, the AO as per the direction of the CIT(A), reduced the amount of addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- from the total assessed income and further arrived at a figure Rs. 791675/- being amount to be disallowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 is attracted in this case and since at the time of making the disallowance u/s 14A and calculating the same Rule 8D was in existence, the Assessing Officer is directed to work out the disallowance as per the provision of Rule 8D. If the working as per Rule 8D results in a disallowance more than what has been made by the Assessing Officer, this order will be treated to have made an enhancement to that extent." 6.1.1. I find that above findings were given in the context of appellant's argument that income from house property is a separate income and has nothing to do with the income from the firm, the assessing authority has misinterpreted the provision of sec. 14A and therefore entire addition of Rs 5,65,880/- deserved to be st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res under rule 8D. With these directions, the ground nos. 1 and 2 are disposed of. The grounds are treated as allowed. 07. Vide ground no. 3, the appellant contended that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable in the case of the appellant as the expenditure of interest on borrowed funds is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. I find no force in this claim of the appellant. My Id. Predecessor vide his order dated 19-08-2013 in Appeal No. 357/11-12 for AY 2009-10 after examining the appellant's claim that interest payment is allowable u/s 36(1)(ii), upheld the applicability of provisions of sec. 14A of the Act. The undersigned is not authorized to review the order passed by predecessor. If the appellant was not sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as it remained unchallenged before a higher forum by the assessee and hence, the subject matter was restricted to the computation of amount disallowable u/s 14A in the light of Rule 8D.After a very careful consideration of the rival contentions, the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, we find that the predecessor ld. CIT(A) had no doubt had upheld the applicability of S. 14A but at the same time, he has very categorically held that the disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- was not correctly worked out by the AO by overlooking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the predecessor ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to work out the disallowance as per rule 8D.The AO, pursuant to the above directions, reworked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income. In the present case, however, there is absolutely no finding recorded by the authorities below that which and how much expenditure has been incurred in relation to an exempted income the fact otherwise shows that the total income also included taxable income from house property, which is not contemplated. Moreover, the claim of interest payment on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) has not been shown as resulting into some exempted income or was incurred in relation to an exempted income. In this view of the matter, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the challenge raised by the assessee before him vide ground of appeal no. 3. The ld. CIT(A) ....