- (1.) Heard Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for respondent.
(2.) This is an appeal at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax II, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Revenue") under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961") arisen from judgment and order dated 23.01.2015 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench "A", Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in ITA No. 538/LKW/2012, relating to Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "A.Y.") 2009-10, whereby it has allowed Assessee's appeal partly and has set aside order of Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "A.O.") as confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") in relation to additions made by disallowing exemption under Section 14A(2) of Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1962").
(3.) The expenditure computed as income by A.O. disputed in this appeal are to the extent of Rs. 40,31,477/-. This appeal was admitted on 03.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified under the facts and circumstances of case in setting aside order of CIT(A) and deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 40,31,477/-; when the assessee made investments in subsidiary companies and not submitted any detail of expenditure before the authorities. (ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order of CIT(A) without considering that when no explanation submitted by assessee regarding expenditure Assessing Officer rightly applied the provision of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules for making disallowance under Section 14A. (iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order of CIT(A) and deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer without appreciating that Rule 8D(2) does not require Assessing Officer to record the satisfaction separately prior to applying the provision of Section 14A.";