M/S. UNISON INSURANCE BROKING SERVICES P.LTD.,.,,BARODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BARODA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASSEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3488/Ahd/2014 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Unison Insurance ITO बनाम/ Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. Ward-4(1) Vs. 206-213, Glacier Complex, Vadodara Jetalpur Road, Vadodara - 390007 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAA CU2 865 Q .. (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Manish J. Shah, AR Lalit P. Jain, Sr. DR ��यथ� क� ओर से / Respondent by : सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of 04/03/2019 Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of 11 /03/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD - JM:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) Appeal No. CAB/III-285/2012-13 dated 12.09.2014 arising from assessment order dated 30.01.2013 and following grounds have been taken:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 6,29,771/-, on the two grounds viz. (a) that the amendment made by inserting second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 has not been given retrospective effect and is effective from 01.04.2013 and thus is not applicable to the Asst. Year 2010-11 and also (b) that the appellant has not filed any evidence that the payee has filed its return of income and interest paid by appellant has been taken into account in the return of income filed by the said payee.

ITA No.3488/Ahd/2014 [Union Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd.vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 -

Appellant submits that the aforesaid amendment is the beneficial amendment and hence it will have retrospective effect and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed the AO to allow the appellant reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements of the second proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) r.w. the first proviso to sec. 201(1) of the Act and thereafter delete the impugned disallowance. Your appellant, therefore, prays Your Honour to hold so now and kindly direct the Ld. AO to delete the impugned disallowance on appellant complying with the conditions laid down in the first proviso to sec. 201(1) of the Act. 2. Without prejudice the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant’s case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming disallowance of interest expense of Rs. 6,29,771/-, on the ground that though the impugned expenditure has not remained unpaid of the last date of the relevant previous year, the decision in the case of CIT vs. Sikhandar Khan N. Tanwar 259 CTR (GUJ) 57 is still applicable. Appellant submits that at the end of the relevant year the impugned expenditure had not remained unpaid and therefore the same is not disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Appellant, therefore, prays Your Honour to hold so now and kindly direct the ld. AO to delete the impugned disallowance. On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the additional ground and thereby has erred in not allowing tax credit of Rs. 13,26,186/- though appearing in Form No. 26AS, on the ground that the appellant has not furnished requisite evidence in proof that such income on which tax deducted at source has been made and reflected in Form 26AS have been made part of its returned income as required under Rule 37BA(3) of the Income Tax Rules. Your appellant submits that from about 2350 transactions appearing in Form No. 26AS dtd. 23.10.2013 (which continuously got amended from time to time August, 2010 to January, 2013) regarding taxes deducted by various 143 payers/deductors, your appellant noticed that tax deducted at source of Rs. 13,26,186/- has not been claimed in the return of income. Your appellant further submits that looking to the nature of appellant’s business and voluminous business transactions, exact one-to-one co-relation of income appearing in Form 26AS (as uploaded by deductors) with that of income in the books of accounts of the appellant reflected in the return of income, is time consuming and also difficult due to absence of tax deducted at source details from payers/deductors against each and every payment made by them, different system of accounting and manner of tax deducted at source followed by them, ad-hoc payments made by them etc. Your appellant further submits that from the angle of fairness and justice, TDS credit of Rs. 13,26,186/- cannot be denied and requires to be refunded to the appellant only and hence appellant prays Your Honour to adjudicate the relief claimed vide this ground sympathetically. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that appellant is entitled to tax credit of Rs. 13,26,186/-, since appearing in Form No. 26AS. Alternatively it is also entitled to said tax credit since the income stated in Form 26AS is mostly from a broad angle also verifiable