TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) claiming that the investment in the government securities have yielded taxable income and the same have been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). However, as these evidences have not been verified by the AO, in the interest of natural justice, the issue of the computation of the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. r. 8D is restored to the file of the AO only because the evidences have been produced before the Ld. CIT(A) and he has done the verification without granting an opportunity to the AO. - Decided in favor of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No.468/Mds/2017, ITA Nos.488, 489 And 490/Mds/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Mr.Girish S.Sundar, CA And Mr.R.Venkatesan, CA For The Department : Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, CIT And Mrs. Vijayaprabha, JCIT ORDER PER BENCH: ITA No. 468/Mds/2017 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, in ITA Nos. 29/12-13, 92/14-15 79/15-16 dated 22. 12. 2016 for the AYs 2010- 11 to 2012-13. ITA No. 488 to 490/Mds/2017 are the appeals filed by the Revenue agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee had offered the income by way of the securitization of their loans during the AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07. It was a submission that the securitization agreement between the assessee and Axis Bank was cancelled in September, 2010 on mutually agreed basis and as per the understanding, the assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 8, 61, 13, 095/- to Axis Bank. It was a submission that the AO had disallowed the said loss on account of the cancellation of the securitization agreement on the ground that it was not explained or proved that the said amounts were already offered for taxation. Further, the AO had held that the nature of the outstanding principle could partake the character of the capital loss only and not Revenue loss. It was a submission that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that no agreement with regard to the pre-closure of securitization was furnished either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A) and the evidence furnished by the assessee only gave the details of what happened consequent to the preclosure without revealing any details with regard to the actual terms and conditions for pre-closure of the securitization agreement. It was a submission tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the file of the AO for re-adjudication. On merits, the assessee has produced no evidence to substantiate his case that the income in respect of the securitization of the said loans has been offered during the relevant assessment years. The assessee is also not in a position to show the agreement with the Axis Bank in respect of the preclosure of the securitization or the mutually agreed to computation. This being so, we are of the view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is on right footing and does not called for any interference. 6.3 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 468/Mds/2017 stands dismissed. 7. In respect of the Revenue s appeal, the first issue raised is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in directing the re-computation of the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. r. 8D. It was a submission that the assessee has earned dividend income of ₹ 75, 000/- for each of the relevant assessment years. The said dividend income has been received by the assessee from the investment made in the uncoated equity shares of Kalyan Janatha Sahakari amounting to ₹ 5. 00 lakhs. It was a submission that the assessee had suo motu made disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the Appellant for extending housing loans to the ultimate borrowers. This has also been verified by the Ld. CIT(A). In respect of the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii), the words are a amount equal to 0. 5% of the average value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee . 7. 4 The assessee has produced evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) claiming that the investment in the government securities have yielded taxable income and the same have been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). However, as these evidences have not been verified by the AO, in the interest of natural justice, the issue of the computation of the disallowance u/s. 14A r. w. r. 8D is restored to the file of the AO only because the evidences have been produced before the Ld. CIT(A) and he has done the verification without granting an opportunity to the AO. 8. The second issue in the Revenue s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition being the reversal of the provisions of NPA as made by the AO. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that in the course of assessment, it was noticed that the NPAs were claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that the suo motu disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act has not been shown to the AO. It was a submission that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 9.1 In reply, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue could be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. 9.2 We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that the said amount of ₹ 40. 00 lakhs was suo motu disallowed by the assessee when filing of its return on account of the non-deduction of TDS and the evidences has not been produced before the AO, this issue to be stored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 10. The next issue in the Revenue s appeal, is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO in respect of the delayed payment of employees contribution to ESI PF. The Ld. DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in TCA No. 437/2013, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 10.1 In reply, the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
