AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.3069 & 3070/Del/2015 for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 17.02.20215, in case nos. 561/14-15 & 577/14-15 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for its identical sole substantive ground challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D disallowance(s) amounting to Rs.3,15,046/- and Rs.2,96,388/-; assessment year-wise, respectively.
That being the case, learned counsel’s sole contention before us is that both the lower authorities have wrongly computed the administrative expenditure disallowance herein under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules after including both the exempt as well as the taxable income yielding investments which is not sustainable in law. He fails to dispute that no clear-cut cogent supportive evidence has been filed before us to the very effect.
Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant identical solitary substantive grievance back to the learned Assessing Officer to ensure that no taxable income yielding investments are considered whilst computing the impugned disallowance related to its exempt income subject to a rider that it shall be taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to file its specific evidence within three effective opportunities of hearing; in consequential proceedings.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.3069 & 3070/Del/2015 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.