Bhavin Upadhyay, Vadodara V. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

ITA 1459/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9047 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T P HEMANI; PARIMALSINH PARMAR
• Keywords: Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1459 /AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014 - 2015 BHAVIN UPADHYAY , NEURO CARE CLINIC , KHARIVAV ROAD , DANDIA BAZAR, VADODARA - 390001. PAN : AAEPU2434L VS. D .C.I.T. , CIRCLE - 3(1) , VADODARA . (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.P. HEMANI, SR. ADVOCATE & SHRI PARIMAL SINH PARMAR, A.R REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH , SR .D. R / DATE OF HEARING : 11 / 12 / 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01 / 01/2021 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, VADODARA , DATED 12/04/2018 ( IN SHORT LD. CIT (A) ) ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 20 15 . ITA NO.1459 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2014 - 15 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN PART AMOUNTING TO RS.1,73,132/ - UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W RULE 8D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DOCTOR BY PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SHOWN EXEMPTED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,20,424/ - ONLY BUT HE DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST SUCH EXE MPTED INCOME IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.5,08,824/ - AS DETAILED UNDER: SR.NO. PARTICULAR AMOUNT 1. DIRECT EXPENSES NIL 2. INTEREST EXPENSES RS. 4,14,526/ - 3. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES RS. 94,298/ - TOTAL RS. 508824/ - 3.1 THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENSES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' WHO PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3 .3.2 THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A AND COMPARATIVE CHART ASSETS AND LIABILITIE S. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OWN FUNDS OF RS.9,35,09,739/ - AT THE END OF 31.03.2014 AS AGAINST INVESTMENT WAS OF RS.2,32,35 ; 826/ - AS ON 31.03.2014. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF HIS OWN FUND WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BALAN CE SHEET. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THE CASE OF (I) CIT VS SUZLON ENERGY LTD.[2013] 354 ITGR 0630(GUJ) ; (II) PR.CIT VS INDIA GELATINE & CHEMICALS LTD. [2015] 376 ITR 0353 (GUJ), (III) CIT VS GSFC LTD. [2013] 217 TAXMANN 0343(GUJ) AND (IV) CIT VS TORRENT POWER LTD.[2014] 363 ITR 0474 (GUJ). 3.3.3 THE A,0 HAS TAKEN AVERAGE OF FIXED ASSETS OF RS.1,74,59,134/ - INSTEAD OF RS.9,18,03,217/ - AS PER BALANCE SHEET, AS PER PRESCRIBED METHOD OF WORKING UNDER ITA NO.1459 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2014 - 15 3 RULE 8D, THE CORRECT FIGURE WORKS OUT TO RS.1,72,132/ - . ACCORDIN G TO THE A.R., THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.3,36,692/ - AND BALANCE OF RS.1,72,132/ - IS TO BE CONFIRMED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK - OUT AS PER THE METHOD PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D BEFORE ALLOWING THE RELIEF. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL NE CESSARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ''LD.CIT (A)'' THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION S WE NOTE THAT THE FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED FROM DETAILS AS GIVEN BELOW: PARTICULARS BALANCE AS ON 31.03.14 (RS. IN LACS) BALANCE AS ON 31.03.13 (RS. IN LACS) (A) INTEREST FREE FUNDS: CAPITAL NET PROFIT RESERVES & SURPLUS TOTAL (A) (B) INVESTMENTS 6,15,98,125 3,19,11,641 37,94,063 9,73,03,829/ - 2,41,35,826/ - 4,99,28.684 2,59,46,916 34,91,383 7,93,66,983 1,35,83.454 (C) RATIO OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS & INVESTMENTS 4.03 TIMES 5.84 TIMES 8 .1 THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES IN A SITUATION WHERE THE OWN FUND EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . AS SUCH, ITA NO.1459 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2014 - 15 4 THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF IT S OWN WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY BORROWED FUND. IN HOLDING SO WE DRAW SUP PORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDG MENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TORRENT POWER LTD REPORTED IN 363 ITR 474 WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IT WAS NOTED FROM RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SHARE HOLDING FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF 2607.18 CRORES AND THE INVESTMENT MADE BY IT WAS TO THE EXTENT OF`RS.195.10 CRORES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS AND IT HAD NOT USED THE BORROWED FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSE. THIS ASPECT OF HUGE SURPLUS FUNDS IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE WHICH EARNED IT THE INTEREST ON BONDS AND DIVIDEND INCOME . [PARA 7] 8 .2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 8 .3 THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS NOT ADVANCE D ANY ARGUMENTS QUA TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 94,298/ - . ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01 /01 / 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - (RAJPAL YADAV ) (WASEEM AHMED) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY ) A HMEDABAD; DATED 01 / 01/2021 MANISH