UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT LTU-2, , MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ” �ी िवजय पाल राव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी गगन गोयल, लेखाकार सद�य के सम�

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A No.1580/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2009-10 I.T.A No.1581/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2000-01 I.T.A No.1582/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2010-11 I.T.A No.1583/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2011-12

Union Bank of India vs DCIT, LTU (2), Mumbai 29th Floor, World Trade Centre Union Bank Bhavan 6th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Centre-1, Mumbai 400 005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN : AAACU0564G APPELLANT RESPONDENT

I.T.A No.452/Mum/2021 - A.Y. 2011-12 I.T.A No.453/Mum/2021 - A.Y. 2010-11 I.T.A No.454/Mum/2021 - A.Y. 2009-10

Assistant Commissioner of Income- vs Union Bank of India tax-3(4), Mumbai Union Bank Bhavan 29th Floor, World Trade Centre 6th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg Centre-1, Mumbai 400 005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN : AAACU0564G APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee represented by Shri C Naresh Department represented by Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT DR

Date of hearing 31/03/2022 Date of pronouncement 07/04/2022

Union Bank of India

ORDER Per Bench:

These are three set of cross appeals for the assessment years 2009-10 to

2011-12 and an appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2000-01

directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax

(Appeal).

which are directed against the order dated 13/02/2020 of CIT(A) arising from

the order passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee and

department has raised following grounds in the cross appeals:-

Assessee’s Appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding rectification order of AO dated 07.06.2018 reinstating addition u/s 14A originally withdrawn in order dated 22.12.2017 giving effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT dated 17.12.2015 that directed the AO to verify and delete the said addition made u/s 14A 2. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO sought to rectify the giving effect order, that had merged with the orders of Hon'ble ITAT

Union Bank of India

and therefore interfered with order of Higher Appellate authority by acting beyond his jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd v IAC 157 ITR 342 in support of above contention. 3. Without prejudice to above contention, the Ld CIT(A) failed to note that disallowance u/s 14A is a legal and debatable issue as the matter was decided by various High Courts and accordingly is not a matter of rectification u/s 154. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A without appreciating that appellant being trader is securities has incurred expenses for buying and selling securities and not for earning of tax free income and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted.”

Revenue’s Appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cased and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that as per the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd 383 ITR 529, section 14A cannot be applied if assessee’s interest free funds are more than its investments yielding tax free income?” 3. In the earlier round of litigation, the issue of disallowance made under

section 14A was carried to this Tribunal and this Tribunal, vide order dated

17/12/2015 directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of disallowance

under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D alongwith other issues of deduction

under section 36(1) afresh. The Assessing Officer has given effect to the order

of this Tribunal by passing the order dated 22/12/2017 and allowed the claim

of the assessee without making any disallowance sofar as section 14A read

with rule 8D is concerned. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has passed an

Union Bank of India

order under section 154 on 07/06/2018 and again made the disallowance

under section 14A by relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of M/s Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT in 91 taxmann.com 154. The

assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section

154 before the CIT(A), who has granted part relief to the assessee by deleing

the addition / disallowance sofar as disallowance of interest expenditure is

concerned by accepting the fact that the assessee was having its own interest

free funds for making the investment. However, the CIT(A) has confirmed the

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the common

administrative expenditure. Thus, both assessee as well as Revenue have filed

the cross appeals.

material on record. At the outset we note that for the assessment year and

2008-09, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.4773/um/2019 vide

order dated 13/08/2021 has considered this issue in para 15 & 16 as under

“15. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that AO has withdrawn, the relief granted u/s. 14A in the assessment order by mentioning that subsequently order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. 402 ITR 640 has come. Accordingly, he has effectively made the disallowance us/.14A u/s 154 of the Act. We note that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra) did not overrule the proposition that when interest free funds are sufficient still disallowances u/s 8D(ii) needs to be done. Thus, the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries and HDFC still holds the forte. Furthermore, in the

Union Bank of India

said case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra) itself Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision to the extent that it was held that disallowances u/s. 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. From the above, it is apparent that said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra) does not give a carte blanche to withdraw the relief granted u/s 14A. Or in other words that it mandates that without considering these aspects disallowances has to be done. There is no doubt that Hon’ble Supreme Court held that relief granted from disallowances u/s 14A on the plank that the investment being stock in trade cannot be upheld. Hence, no relief can be granted to assessee on this account. But, it is still deserved relief on the other issue for own interest free funds for the purpose of u/s 8D(ii) and restricting the disallowances with that extent exempt income. These cannot be said to be a subject matter of rectification u/s 154. Hence, upon careful consideration, we hold that the disallowance is not coming under the realm for rectification of mistake u/s 154 and the AO order u/s 154 cannot be presumed to have considered these aspects. 16. Hence, we agree with the submissions of the assesse that order passed by the AO is not sustainable as the issue was debatable and it was not liable for rectification of mistake u/s .154. Hence, we hold that order passed to withdraw the relief granted u/s 14A earlier is bereft of jurisdiction. Hence, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.” Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal has held that the issue of disallowance under

section 14A in respect of indirect common interest expenditure as well as

indirect common administrative expenditure is a debatable issue and does not

fall in the ambit of an error apparent on record which could be rectified under

section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal, in the earlier order has discussed various

aspects and facts which are required to be considered to take a decision on the

issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income-tax Act. Since

the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass an order under section 154 to

withdraw the relief granted under section 14A is held to be barred, therefore,

both the issues involved in the cross appeals stand disposed of. Even

otherwise, when the Revenue has not disputed the interest free funds with the

Union Bank of India

assessee to invest in the shares and securities yielding tax free income, then no

disallowance is called for under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii).

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the

Revenue for the assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed.

the following grounds:-

Assessee’s Appeal “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding rectification order of AO dated 05.06.2018 reinstating addition u/s 14A originally withdrawn in order dated 22.12.2017 giving effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT dated 08.01.2016 that directed the AO to verify and delete the said addition made u/s 14A 2. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO sought to rectify the giving effect order, that had merged with the orders of Hon'ble ITAT and therefore interfered with order of Higher Appellate authority by acting beyond his jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd v IAC 157 ITR 342 in support of above contention. 3. Without prejudice to above contention, the Ld CIT(A) failed to note that disallowance u/s 14A is a legal and debatable issue as the matter was decided by various High Courts and accordingly is not a matter of rectification u/s 154. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A without appreciating that appellant being trader is securities has incurred expenses for buying and selling securities and not for earning of tax free income and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted.”

Revenue’s Appeal “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cased and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that as per the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd 383 ITR 529, section 14A cannot be applied if assessee’s interest free funds are more than its investments yielding tax free income?”

Union Bank of India

impugned orders of the authorities below. Both the authorised

representatives have fairly admitted that the issue in the cross appeals for the

assessment years 2010-11 are identical and common to the cross appeals filed

for the assessment year 2009-10. Accordingly, in view of our finding on this

issue for the assessment year 2009-10, the appeal of the assessee stands

allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.

grounds:-

Reopening of Assessment 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that,AO reopened the assessment after a period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year even when there was no failure on the part of appellant to fully and truly disclose all information required for completion of assessment. Disallowance u/s 40 a(ia) 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) without appreciating that TD5 is automatically deducted by system and unless there were specific reasons such as exemption certificate etc., question of non-deduction will not arise and the evidence to satisfaction of AO could not be given within a short period due to considerable lapse of time of more than 8 years. Interest u/s 244A 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case where it was held that refunds granted should first be adjusted against interest due and thereafter against tax due by wrongly referring to decision of Hon'ble Apex court in case of Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (358 ITR 291) without appreciating that the said case has no applicability to appellant's case. 3.2 The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appellant's claim was not for payment of interest over and above interest payable u/s 244A and hence the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of Indian Farmer Fertilizer co-operative (71 taxmann.com 37) is not applicable to facts of appellants case.”

Union Bank of India

Ground 1: Regarding validity of reopening of the assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year. 8. The Ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has

reopened the assessment after the expiry of four years from the original

assessment framed under section 143(3), therefore, the reopening is not valid

as hit by the First Proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act. He has

referred to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

order at page 2 of the assessment order and submitted that there is no

allegation by the Assessing Officer that the income chargeable to tax has

escaped assessment by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to

disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. He has

contended that in view of the various binding precedents, the reopening of the

assessment is not valid and liable to be quashed. The Ld.AR has submitted

that for the assessment year 2010-11, an identical issue was considered by this

Tribunal vide order dated 032/03/2021 in I.T.A. No2128/MUM/2019 & I.T.A.

No.2229/MUM/2019.

below and submitted that it is undisputed fact that the assessee has not

deducted tax at source in respect of the interest and the Assessing Officer

Union Bank of India

received information from TDS Wing, Nagpur during the course of survey in

one of the branches of the assessee which revealed that the assessee has not

deducted tax at source in the case where interest credited / paid exceeding the

basic exemption limit.

on record. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on

27/02/2014 whereby the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the

assessee at Rs2697,50,57,249/- under normal provisions of the Act and book

profit under section 115JB at Rs.2811,22,04,789/-. Thereafter giving effect

order was also passed on 10/04/2018 pursuant to the order of CITA) dated

26/12/2017. The Assessing Officer in the meantime issued a notice under

section 148 on 29/03/2018 and recorded the reason to assess the income by

disallowing the claim of interest expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) for want

of TDS. The Assessing Officer has stated in the reasons recorded that an

information was receive d from the TDS Wing, Nagpur regarding this fact of

non deduction of tax at source detected during the survey conducted in one of

the branches of the assessee bank. The Assessing Officer finally passed the re-

assessment order on 10/12/2018 whereby he made a disallowance of

Rs.12,97,323/- under section 40(a)(ia). The assessee challenged the

Union Bank of India

assessment order before the CIT(A) and also raised the issue of validity of

reopening but could not succeed on this issue.

co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 in para 6 as

under:-

“6. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee assailed the assessment so framed with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/01/2019. On the legal issue of reopening, Ld.CIT(A) rejected assessee’s plea by observing that the reassessment proceedings were reopened pursuant to receipt of specific information from TDS wing regarding non-deduction of TDS in certain cases. Based on this information, the case was reopened and examined in AY 2009-10 and disallowance was made u/s 40(a)(ia). Thus, it was a clear case of receipt of tangible information which established that there was failure on the part of assessee to make true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. Once reopening was done on a valid ground, other issues which show underassessment or escapement of income could also be considered by Ld. AO and therefore the other grounds of reopening the case, as recorded in the reasons, were also held to be valid. Before us, the Ld. AR has also raised similar grounds and challenged the validity of jurisdiction acquired by Ld. AO for reopening the case. It has been submitted that the assessment was opened after 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all information required for completion of assessment. However, we find that TDS survey carried out by the department against the assessee was subsequent development. The survey findings revealed certain TDS default on the part of the assessee which would require disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). At the stage of formation of belief, nothing more was required. In our opinion, sufficiency of reason was not a sine-qua-non to reopen assessee’s case rather prima-facie opinion of escapement or underassessment of income was required to be formed at this stage. There was no requirement under law to establish that income, in fact, escaped assessment before triggering reassessment proceedings against the assessee as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [236 ITR 34]. In the present case, specific tangible information came into the possession of Ld. AO which revealed possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more, in our opinion, was required at this stage. Undisputedly, once the case was reopened, the other issues of underassessment or escapement of income could also be examined by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR has also pleaded that

Union Bank of India

objections filed by the assessee were not disposed-off. However, the said plea has also no substance since the assessee, in response to notice u/.s 148, vide letter dated 04/09/2017, merely submitted that it had fully & truly disclosed all the particulars required for the assessment at the time of filing of return of income and at the time of various hearings for assessment u/s 143(3) whereas it is notable that case has been reopened on the basis of subsequent receipt of tangible information. Therefore, we concur with the view of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard and dismiss ground no.1 raised by the assessee.”

To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal

on this issue and consequently ground 1.1 of the appeal is dismissed.

under section 40(a)(ia) which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

on record. At the outset, we note that this issue has been considered by the

co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order

dated 03/03/2021 (supra) in para 8 as under

“8. The disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee was not able to explain the reason for non-deduction of tax at source with proper evidences. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us by way of ground no. 3. It has been submitted before us that evidence to the satisfaction of Ld. AO for reasons of non-deduction tax such as Form 15G/15H etc. could not be furnished since considerable period of time had lapsed. The Ld. AR submitted that tax was automatically deducted by the systems and hence the chances of non- deduction without adequate reasons were remote. Upon due consideration of factual matrix, the bench deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to furnish requisite evidences Ld. AO in support of non-deduction of tax at source or alternatively prove applicability of second proviso to Sec. 40(a)(ia). This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.”

Union Bank of India

Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal has set aside this issue to the record of the

Assessing Officer for verification and examination of the relevant evidence to

be produced by the assessee to show that no TDS was required to be deducted

or alternatively to prove the applicability of Second Proviso to section 40(a)(ia).

Following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, we set aside this issue to the

record of the Assessing Officer on same terms and directions.

orders of authorities below. The CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the

assessee in para 10.1 as under:-

“10.1 I have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee. The ClT(A)- 2,Mumbai vide Appeal No.CIT(A)-2/IT/19/20l7-18 dated 26/12/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 has specifically held that the provisions of section 115 JB do not apply to the assessee. It is not clear as to why the AO hag not noted this direction, Be ns it may, it is also noted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in the appellant's own case for AY 2007-08 as well as in A.Y. 2010-11 (ITA No.2142 & 1627/Mum/2014). Recently the jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee titled CIT-LTU vs. Union Bank of India[2019] 263 Taxman 685 (Bombay)had also held that the provisions of section 115JB, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company governed by provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In view of the above, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and it is held that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee for this year and accordingly Ground No.4 is allowed.”

Union Bank of India

own case as well as the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in

assessee’s own case reported in 263 Taxman 685 (Bom). We further note that

this Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 03/03/2021

(supra) has considered this issue in para 9 as under:-

“The sole subject matter of revenue’s appeal is applicability of Sec.115JB to the assessee Bank for the year under consideration. Regarding adjustment of Book Profits u/s 115JB, relying upon Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 as well as in AY 2010- 11, Ld. CIT(A) held that the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable to the assessee bank. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. We find that the issue of applicability of Section 115JB (prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012) to Banking Company governed by the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 which is reported at 105 Taxmann.com 253 dated 16/04/2019. A copy of the same is on record. The Ld. DR is unable to controvert the same. Therefore, no fault could be found in the impugned order, in this regard.”

against the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court; however, till the

judgement of Hon’ble High Court is not disturbed or stayed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the same is binding on the issue. Accordingly, following the

earlier order of this Tribunal as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble

jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case, we do not find any error or

illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Consequently, the

appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Union Bank of India

ITA No.1581/Mum/2020 - A.Y. 2000-01 18. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated

13/02/2010 of CIT(A) arising from the order of levy of interest under section

220(2) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee

has raised the following grounds

the appeal of the assessee on the technical ground that the order passed

under section 220(2) is not an appealable order. He has pointed out that the

impugned order of the CIT(A) is contrary to various decisions on this issue

wherein it has been held that appeal lies against the charging of interest under

section 220(2), if the order of the Assessing Officer levying interest is arbitrary.

Union Bank of India

In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate

bench of this Tribunal in case of ACIT vs Hindalco Industries Ltd 4 SOT 757

(Mum). The Ld.AR has, then submitted that an identical issue has been

considered by the Gauhati Bench in case of India Carbon Ltd 122 TAXMAN 76

(Gauh). He has also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

case of Televista Electronics Ltd (2017) 88 taxmann.com 148 (Del) and

submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal

whereby it was decided that levy of interest under section 220(2) while passing

the order under section 154 had effect of enhancing assessment and the

appeal filed against said order would be maintainable under clause (c) of

section 246(1) of the Act. Hence, the Ld.AR has submitted that the CIT(A)

would have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same in

limine. He has pointed out that the Assessing Officer has levied the interest

under section 220(2) without giving effect to the order of CIT(A) dated

25/10/2012. The Assessing Officer has also not allowed the correct interest

under section 244A as directed by the CIT(A) resulting in short granting of

interest of Rs.38,53,75,162/-. Thus, the Ld.AR contended that had the

Assessing Officer given the effect to the order of CIT(A) dated 25/10/2012,

there would have been no charging of interest under section 220(2). The

Union Bank of India

Ld.AR has pointed out that the assessee filed a petition under section 154 of

the Income-tax Act to rectify the mistake while levying the interest under

section 220(2) without giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) dated

25/10/2012; however, till date the Assessing Officer has not passed any order

on the petition filed under section 154 of the Act.

upon by the Ld.AR are not applicable in the present case as in this case, there is

no order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 whereas in those

cases, the order was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 r.w.s.

220(2) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer has not

disturbed the total income of the assessee while passing the order under

section 220(2), then the said order is not an appealable order and cannot be

challenged in the appeal. He has relied upon the order of the CIT(A) on this

issue.

on record. The present controversy a result of multi round litigation for the

year under consideration. Originally, the order under section 143(3) was

passed on 28/02/2003 whereby the Assessing Officer made an adjustment in

the book profit on account of bad and doubtful debts to the

Union Bank of India

tune of Rs.201 crores. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing

Officer before the CIT(A), but could not succeed. In the second appeal, this

Tribunal in ITA No.5105/Mum/2004 vide order dated 09/05/2008 allowed the

claim of the assessee by following the Special Bench decision in case of JCIT vs

Usha Martin Industries Ltd 104 ITD 249 (Cal)(SB). The department filed an

M.A. against the said order of the Tribunal in view of the amendment in the

provisions of section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2009 wherein the Tribunal vide

order dated 19/11/2010 allowed the M.A. and directed the Assessing Officer to

examine the case as per accounts prepared in accordance with Schedule 6 of

Companies’ Act. The Assessing Officer consequently added back the said

amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts to the book profit. The said

giving effect order was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) and the

CIT(A), in para 8.1 of the order dated 25/10/2012, has observed as under:-

“8.1 Therefore, as per the above computation Rs.201,00,00,000/- was deleted. Subsequent to this the ITAT reversed its decision as per MA dt. 31/01/2011. In the giving effect order the AO mentioned the addition of Rs.235,37,03,000/-. Thus, apparently there was a mistake crept in, thus, the AO is directed to verify the records and consider the same.”

Thus, it is clear that it was noted by the CIT(A) that there was a mistake crept in

the order of the Assessing Officer giving effect to the order of the Tribunal and

consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the record and

Union Bank of India

consider the same. The CIT(A) has further found that it is apparent that the

Assessing Officer has made a mistake in taking the figure from record and

added Rs.115,35,20,000/- instead of Rs.11,53,52,000/-, The said fact is

recorded by CIT(A) in para 9 to 9.2 of order dt. 25.10.2012. The Ld.DR has not

disputed this mistake and discrepancy in the computation made by the

Assessing Officer while passing the giving effect order in pursuance to the

order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also granted part relief in respect of interest

under section 244A of the Income-tax Act which shall have an effect on the

demand of tax and consequential charging of interest under section 220(2) of

the Income-tax Act. Therefore, a substantial relief was granted by the CIT(A)

while passing the order dated 25/12/2012. But the Assessing Officer has

passed the impugned order under section 220(2) without giving effect to the

order of the CIT(A). It appears that the Assessing Officer has deliberately not

passed any order to give effect to the order of the CIT(A) despite the fact that

the assessee had already filed a petition under section 154 of the Income-tax

Act to rectify the mistakes. Once the Assessing Officer has not challenged the

order of the CIT(A) dated 25/10/2012, then the Assessing Officer is bound to

follow the said order in letter and spirit. The non passing of the giving effect

order amounts disobedience and judicial indiscipline on the part of the

Union Bank of India

Assessing Officer which is a serious matter to be considered by the appropriate

authority. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that

the Assessing Officer has acted in a highly arbitrary manner while passing the

impugned order under section 220(2) for charging the interest without first

determining the tax liability of the assessee in accordance with the issues

settled in appeal. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the

orders of the authorities below and remand the issue to the record of the

Assessing Officer to readjudicate the same after giving effect to the order of

the CIT(A) dated 25/10/2012. Assessee’s appeal is allowed, for statistical

purpose.

and 2010-11 are allowed; appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

2011-12 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2000-01 is

allowed for statistical purpose. The appeals filed by the revenue for the A.Y.

2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2022. Sd/- sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (VIJAY PAL RAO) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 07/04/2022 Pavanan

Union Bank of India

�ितिलिप अ�ेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयु�(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 3. आयकर आयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai गाड� फाइल/Guard file. 6.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai