TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer, we fully agree with learned Commissioner (Appeals) that since such disallowances were in course of assessee s regular business activities, they will only enhance the business profit of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee will be entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of such enhanced income. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. Disallowance under section 14A - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the details filed, we are satisfied that the assessee has sufficient own fund to make the investment. Therefore, no disallowance on account of interest expenditure can be made. Further, in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd [ 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in case of Bank, investments are held as stock in trade. Hence, it becomes a business activity of the assessee. That being the case, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can otherwise also be made. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 17th July 2004. It was claimed by the assessee that HTM securities are in the nature of stock in trade. Hence, the premium paid on acquisition of securities is eligible for amortization. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and held that the Government securities shifted to HTM category is in the nature of capital asset, hence, amortization is not allowable. Further, the Assessing Officer also disallowed various other provisions made for expenses including on account bad and doubtful debts reserve amounting to ₹ 4,13,23,900. Thereafter, referring to the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) r/w section 80A(5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer restricted the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to ₹ 3,73,81,195. Accordingly, he determined the total income at ₹ 4,78,05,273. Being aggrieved with the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the validity of re opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as correctness of various disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 5. After considering the submissions of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Act. After examining all the details and making necessary enquiry, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22nd June 2007. On a perusal of the aforesaid assessment order, a copy of which has been placed on record, it is noticed that in Para 4 and 5, the Assessing Officer has specifically dealt with various source of income earned by the assessee and has also referred to the books of account maintained and produced before him by the assessee and which were also contested by him. Further, he has specifically dealt with various categories of investment held by the assessee and observed that they are part of the business activities of the Bank. Therefore, he concluded that the assessee s income since falls under the head Profits Gains of Business, it is entitled to avail deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he allowed the deduction claimed. Thus, from the aforesaid assessment order, it is very much clear that the Assessing Officer was alive to all the facts and details relating to assessee s claim of deduction in respect of investment made as well as other expenditures. It is evident, after due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the aforesaid issue relating to claim of amortization was subject matter of dispute between the assessee and the Revenue in past several years and in assessment year 2008 09, the Tribunal, vide order dated 17th October 2012, in ITA no.7559/Mum./2011, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Pertinently, the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court, vide order dated 17th March 2015, in ITA no.1117/2013, has upheld the decision of the Tribunal. It is further relevant to observe, against the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble High Court, the Revenue went in further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue in CIT v/s Vasshishth Chay Vyapar Ltd., which also included the appeal relating to assessee, being Civil Appeal no.23489 of 2017, dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and upheld the decision of the High Court. Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee. As regards the other deductions claimed by the assessee and disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urred any expenditure. He further submitted, no interest expenditure was incurred by the assessee as the investments were made out of own capital. In this context, the learned Authorised Representative drew our attention to a chart showing availability of fund and their utilization. Further, he submitted, since the assessee is a bank, the investments are to be treated as stock in trade, hence no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made. In this context, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd v/s CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC). 15. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we must observe that the Assessing Officer while making disallowance under section 14A of the Act, has not applied the provisions of rule 8D.Rather, he has disallowed the expenditure on a proportionate basis. In our view, such disallowance on ad hoc basis is unsustainable. Further, it is the contention of the assessee that the entire investment made were out of own fund. In this regard, the assessee has placed the surplus fund position available during the year. On a perusal of the details filed, we are satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement. (c) In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily (emphasis supplied by us now) be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. 8. Quite clearly, ordinarily the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown . Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly , and also observed that arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020 . It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus should be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
