TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has worked out the disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Act. We have also discussed earlier in this order that if the assessee gives actual working of the amount of expenses incurred for earning exempt income then the same has to be examined by the Assessing Officer and before rejecting the same, the Assessing Officer has to give proper reasons but if the working of the assessee is of the estimated expenditure then in our considered opinion, such working itself is not as per Rule 8D because Rule 8D prescribes a particular manner and method for estimation of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and therefore, if actual detail and working is not made available by the assessee then there is no other option but to adopt the basis of estimation as per Rule 8D and since the working of the assessee regarding estimation of the expenses is not as per Rule 8D, the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer for not accepting the working of the assessee that the same is not as per Rule 8D, is cogent reasoning in our considered opinion and therefore, none of the various judicial pronouncements ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue was raised by the assessee in its appeal before the Tribunal and in that year, the Tribunal has restored back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision by following earlier Tribunal order in assessee s own case in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. He submitted that the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10 in I.T.A. No.538/Lkw/2012 dated 23/01/2015 is available on pages 26-46 of the paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to Para No. 2-5 of this Tribunal order. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and also in assessment year 2009- 10, the Tribunal has restored back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision with the direction to readjudicate the issue afresh in the light of the order of the State Government dated 03/04/80. Hence, in the present year also, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in the light of the order of State Government dated 03/04/80. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant pages 127-129. (iii) Tribunal order in the case of DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited in I.T.A. No.814/Del/2011 dated 23/09/2011, paper book pages 68-75. (iv) Tribunal order in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT in I.T.A. No.1733/Pn/2012 dated 30/01/2014, paper book ages 58-67 of the paper book. 8. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we examine the observations of the Assessing Officer in assessment order on this issue. In Para 5 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has shown exempt dividend income of ₹ 9,69,554/- and the assessee was issued show cause notice regarding applicability of section 14A of the Act. He further noted that the assessee worked out disallowance u/s 14A at ₹ 47,827/-. Thereafter, he has noted that the computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of the Act. This working of the assessee regarding disallowance u/s 14A of ₹ 47,827/- is available in the written submissions dated 02/11/2012 submitted by the assessee before the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of the matter that if the Assessing Officer has invoked section 14A of the Act and applied Rule 8D without recording any reason for having not been satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure having regard to the accounts of the assessee, such invocation of rule 14A and application of Rule 8D is not valid. As per the facts of the present case already noted and discussed by us above, we have noted and found that in the present case, the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction with proper reasons that the assessee s claim regarding the amount to be disallowed u/s 14A is not correct. At the cost of repetition, we again narrate the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the present year. In Para 5 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has stated that the computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has worked out the disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Act. We have also discussed earlier in this order that if the assessee gives actual working of the amount of expenses incurred for earning exempt in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 wherein it was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the State Government has released the grant only for setting up of computer lab and not sanctioned any grant for running of these computer lab and as per the minutes, 5% amount was retained on account of training and on this account nothing has been charged in profit loss account. He submitted that under these facts, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified. 14. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 15. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is the claim of the assessee that the amount in question was retained by Inotech for providing training and therefore, even if this amount is considered as income being grant received, then the expenses on account of training has to be allowed resulting into no effective addition and in view of these facts, we hold that this addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified in the facts of the present case. The same is deleted. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page) - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
