DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SATARA

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,69,663/- on account of broken period interest.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that both the issues raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12.

On perusal of record, we find that the first issue raised by Revenue is against deletion of addition made on account of broken period interest. Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1725/PN/2014, order dated 18.05.2016 and for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.491/PUN/2015 order dated 17.05.2017. The Tribunal in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) had held that broken period interest was allowable as deduction. The relevant findings of Tribunal in para 8, which are as under:-

Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction on account of broken period interest and dismiss the ground of appeal No.1 raised by Revenue.

Coming to the second issue raised i.e. on account of disallowance of payments made to retiring staff i.e. on their voluntary retirement.

Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer was of the view that in the absence of any scheme formulated by the assessee bank, the amount paid as ex-gratia to prematurely retiring employees was not to be allowed as deduction. The case of assessee on the other hand, was that the said payment was made in recognition of long term and meritorious services of the employees. The assessee had claimed the said expenditure as ex-gratia payment as in the nature of profits and in lieu of salary, and on the same, TDS was also deducted. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenses in view of section 35DDA of the Act and also held that they were not allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee following the order of Tribunal in the case of another bank.

We find that this issue also arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2011-12 (supra) and the Tribunal vide paras 9 to 14 had decided the issue and allowed the claim of assessee. We are referring to the said paras but not reproducing the same for the sake of brevity.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.