Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its income return for AY 2012-13. The assessing officer disallowed expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) and depreciation on leased assets. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the disallowance of expenses and depreciation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the relief regarding disallowance of expenses as the assessee had submitted relevant TDS certificates and the AO had not pointed out specific defaults. The disallowance of depreciation was also rightly allowed by the CIT(A). The direction to verify the claim for tax paid was also found to be sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief to the assessee concerning disallowance of expenses and depreciation, and whether the revenue's appeal was sustainable.
Sections Cited
40(a)(ia), 115JB, 143(3), 263, 154, 32, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
(Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. IDBI Bank Limited, Income Tax-3(4) IDBI Tower World Trade Room No. 559, Complex, 5th Floor, 22nd Floor, M.K.Road, Taxation Cell Cuffe Parade, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AABCI8842G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. C. Naresh Revenue by MS. Madhu Malati Ghosh (CIT-DR) & Shri. H.M. Bhatt, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 1, MUMBAI/10804/2018-19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the
According to the factual background of this case, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 online on 26.09.2012, declaring income of Rs. 31,22,07,44,638/- under normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 36,94,52,39,137/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.01.2015 was passed and income of Rs. 33,13,47,80,155/- was assessed under normal provisions of the Act and Rs. 38,84,77,25,409/- was assessed as book profit u/s. 115JB Subsequently order u/s.143(3) r/w order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 23.06.2017 r/w order u/s. 154 of the Act dated 11.05.2018 was passed and income was assessed at Rs 34,75,41,77,400/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs. 38,84,77,25,409/- u/s. 115JB of the Act.
Learned assessing officer, after taking into consideration the directions of various appellate orders, tabulated as under and IDBI Bank Ltd. disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 58,25,41,577/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) and Rs. 1,04,245/- on account of depreciation on leased assets. Finally assessed the income at Rs. 32,69,67,68,775/- under normal provisions of the Act as the tax liability as against the revised book profit of Rs. 38,66,07,12,141/- u/s. 115JB of the Act, was found to be more under normal provisions of the Act.
No Court of Order Date Appeal No Order appealed against Appeal 1 ITAT 11/09/2017 ITA/3775/MUM/2017 Order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27/03/2017 passed by CIT(LTU), Mumbai 2 CIT(A) 28/09/2018 CIT(A)-1/ACIT(LTU)-2/IT- Order u/s 143(3) rws 263 136/2016-17 dated 23/06/2017 passed by ACIT(LTU)-2, Mumbai 3 CIT(A) 23/01/2018 CIT(A)-2/IT-24/2017-18 Order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 22/01/2015
Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who partly allowed first appeal by deleting the disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs 58,25,41,577/- and disallowance of Rs. 1,04,245/- on account of depreciation on leased assets, further directing the assessing officer to verify the claim of assessee for grant of tax paid.
IDBI Bank Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A), this second appeal has been filed by the revenue on the following ground: “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in allowing the relief without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer in support of its claim during the set aside proceedings.”
In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing.
We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.
The main point for consideration under appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was justified in granting claimed relief to the assessee? 9. Learned DR has argued that the assessee did not submit the relevant documents before assessing officer in respect of TDS deduction for the year under consideration in compliance of direction of Hon’ble ITAT. Hence, learned CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claimed relief to assessee. Prayed to set aside the impugned order. 10. Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that Hon’ble ITAT, vide order dated 11.09.2017 passed in ITA IDBI Bank Ltd. 3775/MUM/2017 specifically directed assessing officer to verify whether the assessee has duly deducted the TDS on the sum of Rs. 58,25,41,577/- claimed by the assessee and paid the same before the due date of filing of the return. Assessee further submitted that since the data was voluminous and huge, only sample data of TDS certificates was furnished, covering about 54% of the total amount. However, assessing officer did not grant relief on the ground that evidence was given only for Rs. 31.57 crores as against the total amount of Rs. 58.25 crores. Assessee has further submitted that learned assessing officer erringly disallowed the depreciation on leased asset amounting to Rs. 1,04,245/- u/s. 32 of the Act which was rightly allowed by learned CIT(A). Assessee has vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
We find that learned CIT(A) has with precision and unambiguously passed speaking impugned order. The relevant para no. 4.3, 4.7, 4.9 of the impugned order read as under: “4.3 In view of the above facts and submission made by the appellant, I find force in the contention of the appellant. Appellant has discharged its liability and submitted the relevant document in respect of TDS deduction for the year under consideration IDBI Bank Ltd. as per letter submitted before the AO by following the direction of Hon'ble ITAT. From the assessment order it appears that no further details were asked by the AO before denying the claim of the appellant. Otherwise also appellant has furnished the TDS certificates amounting to Rs. 31,57,03,761/- pertaining to the relevant assessment year out of total provision of expense of Rs. 58,25,41,577/-. Therefore, before disallowing the whole amount, AO would have pointed specific default in the TDS certificate submitted and asked for further details. Appellant has uploaded the relevant details during the course of appellate proceedings. Therefore, considering the observation of the Hon'ble ITAT and submission made by the appellant, I am to Rs. of the view that disallowance of expenses made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to 58,25,41,577/- is not sustainable. AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 58,25,41,577/- made on account of disallowance of provision for expenses. Thus, Ground no. 2 of the appeal raised is allowed. 4.7 I have carefully gone through the assessment order, grounds of appeal
, statement of facts and written submission uploaded by the appellant. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) on the issue is unambiguous, unconditional and clear. The claim of the appellant in respect of depreciation on leased asset has been allowed by the Ld. CIT(Appeal). Therefore, I find no justification on the part of the AO to disallow the depreciation while giving the appeal effect order on the ground that the detail in respect of lease asset was not provided. Thus, Ground no. 3 of the appeal raised is allowed. 4.9 Having considered the above facts, submission of the appellant as well as grounds of appeal, I am of the view that this ground requires verification of record. Hence, the A.O. is hereby directed to verify the claim of the assessee for tax paid and after due verification, if the same is found to be correct then allow the same to the appellant. During verification process, proper opportunities for being heard are to be given to the appellant. Thus, the ground no. 4 of appeal raised is partly allowed.”
12. We notice that during the first appellate proceedings appellant assessee uploaded the relevant details in respect of TDS deduction for the year under consideration. The claim of appellant with regard to the depreciation on leased asset was rightly allowed in accordance with order of learned CIT(A) passed in the first round of the litigation as shown in above stated table at para 3 of this order. We also do not find any fault or infirmity in the direction for verification of assessee’s claim for tax paid. The impugned order is thus, sustainable IDBI Bank Ltd. under law. The aforesaid point is accordingly determined against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned order dated 03.08.2023 is sustained. Order pronounced on 06.09.2024.