TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Sr. DRs. for the Respondent ORDER I.P. Bansal: All these appeals are filed by the assessee and they are directed against three separate orders passed by CIT(A) dated 22.6.2010, 15.3.2010 and 29.4.2010 for AY 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. The issue raised by the assessee in all these appeals is identical i.e. disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A. The grounds raised are also identical except difference in figures. Ground for AY 2005-06 is reproduced below:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances on the case the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A at Rs.5,42,920/- is neither justified nor legal since no expenditure was incurred to earn dividend income and hence applicability of Rule 8D is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the assessee that Delhi Tribunal in the case of Minda Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT vide order dated 13.10.2010 in ITA No.4046/Del/2009 has deleted the disallowance on the ground that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has rebutted the submission of the assessee regarding non-incurrence of expenditure which are identified to earn such income and relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products - 88 ITR 192, it was held that where two constructions of the statute are possible, one favouring the assessee should be adopted. Thus, it is the case of the learned AR who had argued this appeal that disallowance made by the AO should be deleted for the reason that Rule 8D cannot be held to be retrospective in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal order upon which the learned AR is placing reliance is dated 13.10.2010 and the orders cited by him are after the order of the said date and he pleaded that even according to rule of precedence, later decisions of similar strength should be followed and thus, he pleaded that matter may be restored back to the file of the AO to decide the same in the line directed in the aforementioned two cases of Super Auto India and Overseas Carpets Ltd. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The facts are not disputed. The disallowance has been made by the AO by referring to Rule 8D as per decision of Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management (supra). Hon'ble Bombay High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the case of Minda Investments Ltd. (supra), the disallowance should be deleted cannot be accepted as in the later decisions similar matters have been restored to the file of the AO and according to rule of precedence, later decision passed by similar strength of the Bench has to be followed in preference to the earlier decision. 11. In view of the above discussion, the matter regarding disallowance is restored back to the file of the AO for recomputation of disallowance as directed above and for statistical purposes, all appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner aforesaid. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31.12.2010. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
