TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Member For the Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, IRS, CIT. For the Respondent: Shri. N. Devanathan, Advocate ORDER Per Abraham P. George, Accountant Member These are appeals filed by the Revenue directed against orders dated 07.08.2017 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Chennai. 2. Grievance raised by the Revenue is that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted disallowance made u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) to the amount of dividend income claimed by the assessee as exempt. 3. Ld. Assessing Officer had considered application of Sec.14A r.w.r 8D as automatic. Assessee had earned dividend income of ₹ 2,76,61,437/- for assessment year 2008-09 and ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 33 ITR (Trib)) : Now, we come to various other arguments by the learned counsel wherein he has disputed the quantum of the disallowance worked out by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's counsel has contended that the various expenses, viz., filing fees, house tax, conveyance, insur ance of building and cars, electricity, building repair, printing and sta tionery, telephone expenses, audit fees, office rent, vehicles expenses, depreciation, etc., were not incurred for earning of exempt income. From the working of the disallowance by the Assessing Officer which is already reproduced earlier in our order, it would be evident that all those expenses have not been considered by the Assessing Officer. In Part (i), the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 8D(2) was ₹ 99,45,325. But, finally, the Assessing Officer restricted the dis allowance to ₹ 52,56,197. Therefore, in our opinion, no relief is due to the assessee from the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 52,56,197. The same is sustained and the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel urges that the mandate of section 14A (especially the section 14A(2)) escaped the attention of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as well as that of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). It was urged that in the present case since ₹ 2,97,440 was volunteered as disallowance, the Assessing Officer was under a duty to first consider the merits of that claim and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and when the explanation/claim of the assessee is not satisfactory, computation under sub-rule (2) to rule 8D of the Rules is to be made. We need not, therefore, go on to sub-rule (2) to rule 8D of the Rules until and unless the Assessing Officer has first recorded the satisfaction, which is mandated by sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Act and sub-rule (1) of rule 8D of the Rules. 9. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not firstly disclosed why the appellant-assessee's claim for attributing ₹ 2,97,440 as a disallowance under section 14A had to be rejected. Taikisha says that the jurisdiction to proceed further and determine amounts is derived after examination of the accounts and rejection if any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated previous year. S.4 of the Act, which imposes the charge to tax reads thus: Charge of income-tax (1) Where any Central Act enacts that income tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with and subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy of additional income-tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income tax shall be charged accordingly. Thus, where the statute indented that income shall be recogni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
