Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘H’ BENCH, MUMBAI.
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM)
O R D E R Per Bench :-
All the three appeals filed by the assessee are related to A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020-21 and they are directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
The assessee is a banking company. The return of income filed by the assessee for all these three years were processed under section 143(1) of the Act by making certain adjustments. The assessee challenged those adjustment by filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) in all the three years. Not satisfied with the reliefs granted by the first appellate authority, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
We shall first take up the appeal filed for A.Y. 2018-19.
2 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
3.1 At the time of hearing, the assessee did not press ground No. 1,2,4,&5. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.
Ground No. 3 relates to withdrawal of interest under section 244A of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee was granted interest under section 244A of the Act in A.Y. 2012-13 and the said order was received during the year relevant to AY 2017-18. Accordingly, the said interest was offered as income in A.Y. 2017-18. Subsequently, the income tax department has withdrawn interest granted under section 244A of the Act on account of additions sustained in assessment/appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the assessee sought withdrawal of interest income offered in A.Y. 2017-18. The Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has allowed withdrawal of interest under section 244A of the Act offered in A.Y. 2017-18. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has raised this ground with the contention that the interest income should be assessed in the year of grant.
4.1 At the outset we noticed that this issue does not pertain to Asst. Year 2018-19. Accordingly, we decline to adjudicate this ground.
Ground No. 6 relates to double disallowance of expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the double disallowance. In view of the above, this ground is superfluous and hence it does not require adjudication.
We shall now take up the appeal filed for A.Y. 2019-10. The assessee did not press ground No. 1,2,3 & 4. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.
Ground No. 5 is related to claim of double disallowance expenditure claimed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, which is in effect the disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same amount was again added by CPC. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee did not get relief from the learned CIT(A).
7.1 We heard the parties on this issue. It is well settled proposition that same income cannot be taxed twice. It is the contention of the assessee that there is double taxation of same item. In our view, this contention of the assessee requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer since the contention of the assessee requires verification of facts. Accordingly we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee and taking appropriate decision.
Next issue relates to the interest charged under section 115P of the Act for delayed payment of dividend distribution tax (DDT). The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has paid two types of dividend during the year under consideration, i.e., Dividend on equity shares was declared on 20.7.2018 and dividend on preference shares was declared on 27.3.2019. He submitted that the assessee has paid dividend distribution tax within the 14 days from the date of declaration of dividends on both the occasions. However, the CPC has charged interest under section 115P of the Act by taking date of declaration of dividend on preference shares also as 20.7.2018. Accordingly, he prayed that suitable directions may be given to correct this error.
8.1 Since the assessee contends that there is an error in recognizing the date, we are of the view that this requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer.
4 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Now we shall take up the appeal for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee did not press all the grounds in this year. Accordingly, all the grounds urged by the assessee in this year are dismissed as not pressed.
Needless to mention the assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer in AY 2019-20.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 are dismissed. The appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 is treated as partly allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2023.