TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and similar additions were made in A.Y. 2008-09 by the ld Assessing Officer, which has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs Textool Co. Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT ]. The assessee had applied before the ld CIT, Kota but approval of the prescribed authority is pending. Therefore, there is no lack on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Addition of pension, leave salary - amount allowable only as paid before due date of return - Held that:- CIT(A) wrongly concluded that amount paid on 03/2/2009 had been included in provision. However, as per paper book submitted by the assessee, this amount of ₹ 5,92,714/- was paid over and above ₹ 43,57,530/-. The ld DR has not controverted the facts and figures, therefore, we allow the assessee’s appeal on this ground. Not allowing the provision of agreement arrears - Held that:- This issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09, which is squarely applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case for the year under consideration. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout even going through his own action on the same issue for the expenditure claimed in the P&L account. It is a clerical mistake before the ld CIT(A), who had verified from the record, which has also been clarified during the course of hearing by the ld AR, which has not been controverted by the ld DR. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 515/JP/2013, ITA No. 584/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM For the Appellant : Shri Vinod Gupta Shri Deepak Gupta (C.A.) For the Respondent : Shri G.R. Pareek (JCIT) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. These are cross appeals, one by the assessee and another by the revenue arise against the order dated 25/03/2013 passed by the learned C.I.T.(A), Kota for the A.Y. 2009-10. The grounds of assessee s as well as revenue s are as under:- Grounds of ITA No. 515/JP/2013 (Assessee s appeal) 1 Impugned assessment order passed U/s 143(3) is bad in law and on facts being against the principle of natural justice and for many more other reasons. 2. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. A.O. has erred by disallowing certain expenses and making addition U/s 40(a)(ia) of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t pressed. Ground No. 9 for initiation of penalty proceeding is premature to decide. There is no bar to initiate the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 3. Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is against disallowance of expenses U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act at ₹ 6,34,114/-. The assessee is a Cooperative Bank, filed its return for the year under consideration on 2009-10 on 26/9/2009 declaring total income of ₹ 2,10,89,950/-. The case was scrutinized U/s 143(3) of the Act on 28/11/2011. The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed various expenses under the heads, printing and stationary, on which no TDS had been deducted on the payment made exceeding ₹ 20,000/-, total payments made under this head at ₹ 4,08,331/- to the various parties, legal fees at ₹ 96,133/-, conveyance at ₹ 38,400/-,tent house expenses at ₹ 68,250/-, payment to Anand Pushap Bahndar at ₹ 24,000/-. Thus total payment of ₹ 6,35,114/- were made by the assessee without deducting TDS, therefore, he made the additions. 3.1 The ld CIT(A), confirmed the addition by observing that intention of TDS prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DTR 101/357 ITR 642 wherein it has been held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only on amount payable at the end of the year not already paid against which SLP filed by the department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, addition confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is required to be deleted. 3.3 At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record all the expenses related to printing and stationary on the basis of particular specification given by the assessee and the assessee had paid VAT on it. The Board circular No. 681 dated 08/3/1994 referred by the AR of the assessee is squarely applicable. Accordingly, such payments are not covered U/s 194C of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT-XVII, Delhi Vs Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. (supra) is also squarely applicable including other cited cases of the assessee. Alternatively, the assessee s claim is allowable on paid basis as relied upon in the case of CIT Vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (supra). These facts had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 29/01/2009 and ₹ 6,08,461/- on 28/07/2009. Obviously amount of ₹ 5,92,714/- should have already been included in the payment till 31/3/2009 and cannot be part of provision as on 31/3/2009. ₹ 6,08,461/- is allowable as paid before due date of return. 5.1 The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld CIT(A) has wrongly understood the fact that ₹ 5,92,714/- was paid on 03/2/2009 and cannot be part of provision as on 31/3/2009 but this amount was paid over and above ₹ 43,57,530/-. He has drawn our attention on page No. 47 and 48 of paper book. Further the LIC has credited interest of ₹ 2.40 lacs on amount already paid to the LIC, therefore, he prayed to allow the relief of ₹ 8,32,714/- out of total disallowances sustained by the ld CIT(A) at ₹ 9,24,253/-. 5.2 At the outset, the ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). 5.3 After considering the facts of the case and paper book submitted by the assessee, the ld CIT(A) wrongly concluded that amount paid on 03/2/2009 had been included in provision. However, as per paper book submitted by the assessee, this amount of ₹ 5,92,714/- was paid over and above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate Bench in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09, which is squarely applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case for the year under consideration. Therefore, by respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench, we allow the assessee s appeal on this ground. 7. Ground No. 7 of the assessee s appeal is against confirming the interest addition of ₹ 89,563/-. The ld Assessing Officer has held that State Bank of India, Jhalawar had shown interest in the name of assessee at ₹ 24,79,563/- on which TDS has been deducted at ₹ 2,56,425/-. The assessee has shown interest income in the books of account from SBI at ₹ 24,11,000/-, therefore, the assessee had disclosed interest income less by ₹ 89,563/-, which was partly allowed by the ld CIT(A) by observing that the credit of TDS of ₹ 2,56,425/- had been given on interest payment of ₹ 24,79,563/-. However, correct figure of addition, he calculated at ₹ 78,563/-. 7.1 The assessee submitted that there was a difference in disclosing the interest by ₹ 78,563/-, which has been made part of the income for A.Y. 2010-11. The addition made during the year under consideration i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleting the disallowance of ₹ 45,000/- on account of Ganesh Mahotasava. The ld Assessing Officer scrutinized the detail of advertisement and publicity expenses. The assessee had debited ₹ 45,000/- on account of Ganesh Mahotasava. After considering the assessee s reply, he held that this expense is not allowable, which has been allowed by the ld CIT(A) by observing that celebrating Ganesh Chaturthi definitely resulted into publicity of bank. It also helped in motivating staff, accordingly, he allowed the expenses. 10.1 The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 10.2 At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments made before the ld CIT(A). He further argued that the assessee is a cooperative bank and has to maintain relation with the customers of different group of peoples. These payments were made through cheque to Ganesh Mahotasava society. The celebration of Ganesh Mahotasava gives the feeling of belongings and motivation to the staffs. Therefore, it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the business purposes. He further relied on the decision in the case of DCIT Vs Cargosol, ITA No. 4846/Mum/2010 wherein purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad is Nil. The assessee has not given the details of this payment made to the LIC during the year under consideration and details of deposits made during the earlier years. Therefore, the amount shown in the balance sheet at ₹ 94,84,714/- as leave salary encashment is added to the income of the assessee U/s 43B(f). The ld CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and found it clerical mistake and accordingly, he allowed the appeal. 11.1 Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments made before the ld CIT(A). The ld Assessing Officer had made addition by making disallowance U/s 43B(f) of the Act by taking amount from the balance sheet, which is grossly incorrect and without even going through his own action on the same issue for the expenditure claimed in the P L account. He further clarified that this issue by drawing our attention on page Nos. 66 and 67 of the paper book and page No. 57 to 65 is clerical mistake, this bifurcation has not been reflected in the balance sheet, which includes leave salary encashment and gratuity for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
