9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of its appeal, reading as under, by the Tribunal: '7. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO was justified in not granting a deduction of Rs. 33,55,026, being interest paid to Head Office (HO) and branches and commission paid to branches and correspondent, in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Your appellants submit that the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act have no application in their case and the CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to grant your appellants a deduction of Rs. 33,55,026/-. Your appellants pray that the AO be directed accordingly.' 2. The same, it is submitted, stands decided by the tribunal per para 15 thereof, allowing the assessee's claim in respect of interest expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. On the perusal of the assessment order, it was noticed that the amount actually disallowed by the AO is Rs. 21,51,539/- and not Rs. 33,55,026/-. The AO is therefore, directed to grant deduction for the correct amount of Rs. 21,51,539/-.' The assessee claims the tribunal to have, in deciding the relevant ground, contesting the disallowance of Rs. 33.55 lacs u/s. 40(a)(ia), omitted to consider the claim for commission, also included therein. In this regard, without doubt, the impugned sum includes both the claim for interest and commission, while para 15 refers only to interest. The claim for interest works only to Rs. 19,61,977/-, and not Rs. 21,51,539/- allowed by the tribunal; which sum is inclusive of Rs. 1,89,562/-, being the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-as-much as the assessee's relevant Gd. (# 7) specifically states, qua commission, as paid to branches and correspondents. True, however, the ground only states the assessee's grievance. The same, however, stands to be decided on the basis of the pleadings by the parties before the appellate authority. A harmonious reading of the impugned order clearly shows that it has accepted the assessee's impugned claim, consistent with its decision in relation to Grounds 5 and 6 (reproduced above), to the extent it relates to commission allowed to HO/branches. In so doing, it follows the co-ordinate bench (in ITA No. 6615/Mum/2003) in the assessee's own case as well as in Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. vs. Dy. DIT(IT) [2012] 136 ITD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould state its' reason/s for upholding the disallowance, i.e., adjudicate the same. There is no positive or clear finding in the matter, informing as to why it considers the assessee's claim as exigible for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). The claim cannot simply be brushed aside, even if, as apparent, it has not been considered as payment to self. The order should explicitly state as to why the claim does not qualify for deduction, stating its reason/s, even if, as it appears, it is for the reason of non-deduction of tax at source, which is admitted. To this extent, we find the assessee's claim for non-adjudication as valid. The impugned order is, accordingly, recalled for adjudicating the assessee's Ground No. 7 in-so-far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
