2013 (10) TMI 370 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act Held that - Disallowance has been made under Section 14A and the question was whether a higher disallowance of more than Rs.94 lakhs would have been made and the Commissioner has not given or formed any opinion on whether or not the said disallowance was satisfactory or not. Commissioner was not sure and certain though the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and accepted the offer made by the assessee Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Incorrect grounds of appeal.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A.
4. Commissioner's order under Section 263.
5. Disallowance of dividend income.
6. Application for condonation of delay.

Issue 1: Delay in refiling the appeal
The judgment addresses a delay of 212 days in refiling the appeal. Despite the delay, the court decides to examine the appeal on its merits before considering the application for condonation of delay.

Issue 2: Incorrect grounds of appeal
The grounds of appeal and figures mentioned do not align with the impugned order. The court notes discrepancies in the figures related to depreciation on computer peripherals and dividend income. The court questions the accuracy of the tax effect calculation by the Revenue.

Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 14A
The court discusses the disallowance under Section 14A, emphasizing a case law precedent where the Assessing Officer accepted a disallowance offered by the assessee after due inquiry. The court highlights the importance of proper inquiry before challenging such disallowances.

Issue 4: Commissioner's order under Section 263
The Commissioner's order under Section 263 is scrutinized for factual inaccuracies regarding the Assessing Officer's inquiry into the disallowance. The court clarifies that the assessment order does not become erroneous solely because the Assessing Officer accepts a claim or disallowance after verification.

Issue 5: Disallowance of dividend income
The judgment evaluates the disallowance of dividend income and compares it to a previous case where no disallowance was made under Section 14A. The court emphasizes the need for a clear opinion from the Commissioner on the adequacy of the disallowance made.

Issue 6: Application for condonation of delay
Ultimately, the court decides not to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of both the application and the appeal. The decision is based on the court's assessment of the issues discussed regarding the appeal's merits and the delays involved.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the various legal issues addressed by the court, including discrepancies in grounds of appeal, disallowances under Section 14A, Commissioner's orders under Section 263, and the implications of delays in refiling appeals.