TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh JJ. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta with Mr. Sameer Sharma For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department. 2. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 89,64,336/- without appreciating the fact that the investment in shares of other company is not a part of business of the assessee and there is no profit to the business of the assessee from such investment. (ii) Whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal which is presently pending before this Court. The said question, therefore, need not and cannot be gone into. Nevertheless, irrespective of the aforesaid question, what cannot be denied is that the requirement for attracting the provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Act is proof of the fact that the expenditure sought to be disallowed/deducted had actually been incurred in earning the dividend income. Insofar as the Appellant-Assessee is concerned, the issues stand concluded in its favour in respect of the Assessment Years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2001- 2002. Earlier to the introduction of Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act, such a determination was required to be made by the Assessing Officer in his best judgment. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the Assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable. 38. In the present case, we do not find any mention of the reasons which had prevailed upon the Assessing Officer, while dealing with the Assessment Year 2002- 2003, to hold that the claims of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income cannot be accepted and why the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier Assessment Years were not acceptable to the Assessing Officer, particularly, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
