Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (1) TMI 614 - AT - Income TaxBad and doubtful debts - book profit for the purpose of section 115JA - Interest on borrowings - disallowance u/s 14A - whether there is any evidence or material on record in the present case authorizing the Assessing Officer to invoke section 14A for the purpose of disallowing the expenditure of ₹ 5 lakhs HELD THAT:- A provision for bad and doubtful debts is made with the view to guarding against the non-recovery of certain debts which are considered by the company as bad or doubtful. It implies that monies receivable by the company may not be realised. Explanation (c) refers to amount set aside to provisions made "for meeting liabilities". By making the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the assessee is not guarding against any liability which it may be called upon to pay. For instance, a provision made for gratuity payable to the employees may properly be called a provision made for meeting a liability. But, when a provision is made to guard against the possible non-recovery of amounts due to the assessee, it cannot be described as provision made for meeting a liability. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in India (ICAI), in its guidance note on "terms used in financial statements" (filed by the assessee) had defined a "liability" as "The financial obligation of an enterprise other than owners’ funds". Therefore, on this ground also, the decision of the CIT(A) requires to be upheld. We do so and dismiss the ground. Interest on borrowings - disallowance u/s 14A - Section 14A gives the Assessing Officer the power to disallow expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The precise question that arises for consideration is whether it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to show on the basis of the material on record that the assessee in fact incurred expenditure to produce non-taxable income which he may disallow or whether he can estimate a part of the expenditure incurred by the assessee as expenditure incurred to produce non-taxable income on the assumption that a part of the expenditure must have necessarily been incurred to produce non-taxable income. The conclusion seems inescapable that the expenditure which the Assessing Officer seeks to disallow u/s 14A should be actually incurred and so incurred with a view to producing non-taxable income. If this much is clear from the section, it follows that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to pin point such expenditure on the basis of the material on record. The mere removal of the disability statutorily, however does not ipse facto authorize him to assume that a part of the expenditure has been incurred by the assessee in relation to the exempted income and to proceed to disallow the same on estimate. The section does not, in our opinion, relieve the Assessing Officer of the burden of proving, on the basis of evidence or material on record that the assessee has in fact incurred expenditure which has relation to the exempted income. Even in regard to section 80M, the Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh High Courts have held that the Assessing Officer cannot estimate and disallow any notional or ad hoc expenditure to reduce the dividend income. No dispute that the entire dividend of ₹ 83,02,635 which is exempt under section 10(33) was received from M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. by a single dividend warrant and no effort or expenses were necessary or were incurred to earn such income. These is also no material brought before us to show that the assessee’s contention that no part of the interest can be attributed to the earning of the dividend income since the shares were acquired from the own funds in the earlier years and not from borrowed funds, is factually incorrect. In these circumstances, we have to agree with the assessee that there is no material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer would estimate and disallow a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs by invoking section 14A. We, therefore, agree with the decision of the CIT(A), affirm the same and dismiss the Ground No. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
|