TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le opportunity of being heard to both sides. Since the facts in the present two years are similar, in the present two years also, we restore this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining the remand report from the AO if the assessee files the required details before the CIT(A) in compliance of Rule 6ABA. Needless to say learned CIT(A) should provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. Accordingly, the relevant ground on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes in both the years. TDS u/s 194A - disallowance of interest paid on bank deposits - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) because Form No.15G / 15H were not submitted before the AO and no proof was submitted before the AO regarding filing the copy of the same before the concerned CIT - HELD THAT:- An opportunity should be given to the assessee to bring on record the respective Form No.15G/15H received by the assessee and assessee should also bring evidence on record regarding submission of those Form No.15G/15H before the concerned CIT even if such submission before CIT is delayed submission. We direct he AO that if the assessee brings such evidences on record and if it is found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we reproduce the grounds raised by the Revenue in these 2 appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14 which are as under: ITA No.521/Bang/2018 1. The order Of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts or the case. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case. the AO disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee in the P L account under the head of amortization as the same couldn't partake the character of revenue expenditure, since this amount was incurred fully at the time of SLR investment and HELD TO MATURITY(HTM).. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A), has erred in giving relief to the assessee considering the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08 2009-10, while the same issues are pending before the Hon'ble High Court for adjudication. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A), has erred in holding that amortization of premium paid on Government securities in an allowable expenditure ignoring the para 29(vi) of CBDT Instruction no. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 in ITA No.496 1102/Bang/2018. The grounds raised by the assessee in these two years are as under: ITA No.496/Bang/2018 1. The learned. CIT(A) erred in passing the order in the manner which he did. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing provision made for privileged leave encashment to the tune of ₹ 1,17,79583/- which was made on actual valuation, treating the same as contingent liability without appreciating the submission of Appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in further disallowing provision made on standard asset of ₹ 23,30,409/- Stating it is a contingent provision. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing provision made for bad and doubtful debts of ₹ 67,24,316/- u/s 361(1) (VIIa) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A) fl.-ther erred in disallowing bad debts written of to the extend of ₹ 1,02,4S,734/- u/s 36(1)(VII) of the Act stating that when the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1) (VIIa) of the Act in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts in the books, both the deduction u/s 36(1)(VII) cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/- in Assessment Year 2011 12 and ₹ 2,85,72,005/- in Assessment Year 2012 13 is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of UOI and Ors Vs. Exide Industries Limited as reported in 107 CCH 0427 ISCC, copy submitted by her. She pointed out that as per this judgement, it was held by Hon ble Apex Court that clause (f) in section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and operative for all purposes and this disallowance was made by the AO in both the years on the basis of this clause (f) of section 43B as can be seen on page 2 of the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2011-12 and page 3 of the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2012-13. In view of this factual and legal position, this issue is decided against the assessee. 9. Thereafter, learned AR of the assessee submitted that as per ground No.4 in both the years, the dispute is regarding disallowance of provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts under section 361(1) (VIIa) of ₹ 67,24,316/- in A. Y. 2011 12 and ₹ 5,88,76,704/- in A. Y. 2012 13. Regarding this issue, she submitted that this issue is covered by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT (Appeals) from the AO. He also submitted that as per pages 5 6 of the assessment order, it was stated by the AO that the details required as per Rule 6ABA were not furnished before him. The ld. DR of Revenue submitted that even if details submitted before the CIT(Appeals) which are available on pages 1 to 7 of PB are to be considered as details in compliance of Rule 6ABA, the matter should go back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report of the AO. 8. The ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT (Appeals). 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per assessment order, it is the objection of the AO that the details as per requirement of Rule 6ABA are not furnished before him. In the PB pages 1 to 7, some details are made available before us, but as per the certificate given in the PB, all these details were filed before the CIT (Appeals) and the same were not filed before the AO. We also find that no remand report has been obtained by the ld. CIT (Appeals) from the AO. Under these facts, we find force in the contention of the ld. DR of Revenue that this matter should go back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the assessee and were filed with the jurisdictional CIT concerned. The matter was restored back to the file of AO for a fresh decision with a direction that the AO will adjudicate the matter denovo after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter and to file details / submissions required in this regard. She submitted in the present case also, in both years, the matter may be restored to AO for fresh decision with similar directions. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was also submitted by him that in para 8.6 of his order for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-13, this is noted by learned CIT(A) that the assessee has not complied with mandatory requirements as well as proper Forms 15G/15H were not brought on record. He submitted that on this issue, the matter should be decided against the assessee and it should not be restored back to the file of AO. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para 6 from the Tribunal order in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. ACIT (supra). This para reads as under: 6.0 It can be observed from the order of CIT(A), Hubli in assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. After admittedly observing as above, the ld CIT(A) has strangely proceeded to uphold orders of the AO stating that the assessee is in the regular practice of not providing information required for TDS verification before the AO and since the matter was getting barred by limitation, the AO's action in passing the orders u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was upheld. In our considered view on an appraisal of the material on record, we find that the factual situation on the identical issue prevailing in the asst. year 2010-11, is similar to that prevailing in the asst. years 2011-12 and 2012-13, i.e the years under consideration before us; where the AO was directed by CIT(A) to verify and examine the issue afresh and consider the assessee's claim after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. In the case of hand it is not clear from the record as to how many cases of payment of interest the assessee was having Form No.15G/15H and whether these Forms were at all submitted with the jurisdictional CIT. In this factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders of the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
