9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any as 16 grounds. The grounds of appeal are summed up as under: Ground no. 1 to 3: Against deleting of disallowance u/s. 14 r.w.r 8D. Ground no. 4 to 6: Against deleting of addition on account of amortization of premium. Ground no. 7 to 9: Against deleting of provisions for Standard Assets u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Ground no. 10: Against deleting of addition on account of fraud/dacoity. Ground no. 11 to 13: Against deleting of addition on account of disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. Ground no. 14: Against deleting of expenditure claimed under the head 'Estab- PNB'. Ground no. 15 & 16: Against deleting the addition on account of disallowance of establishment expenses. 4. Facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank is a Regional Rural Bank and is treated as cooperative Society as per section 22 of RRB Act. The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 150,00,63,447/- on 28/11/2016. On 31/03/2018, the assessee revised its return of income declaring income at Nil after claiming deduction under section 80P. The case was selected for scrutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 366 ITR 105 (Bom) and in the case of ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2011) TIOL 35 (ITAT Mumbai). The issue is now well settled that amount paid towards amortization of premium on securities 'held to maturity' is an allowable deduction. We see no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, hence, the same are upheld and ground no. 4 to 6 are dismissed. Revision for Standard Assets: 7. The assessee has claimed provision for Standard Assets amounting to Rs. 1,76,56,000/-. The AO placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. vs JCTT, in Civil Appeal No. 1337/2003 disallowed the assessee's claim. The CIT(A) place reliance on the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case in AY 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 deleted the addition. 7.1. The CIT(DR) to reinforce view of the AO has further placed reliance on the following decisions: "1, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (earlier MGB Gramin Bank) ITA No. 504/Jodh/2018, A. Y 2010-11/ ITA No. 517 to 521/ Jodh/2018, A.Y 2007-08, 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2013-14, & 2012-13/ CO No. 13/Jodh/2018, A. Y 2009-10, Dated 10- 11-2023. 2. Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank [2018] 93 taxmann.com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orting the order of CIT(A) submitted that reasons for fraud are given in FIR, copy of which was provided to the AO. He further made statement at Bar that as and when the amount lost in fraud is recovered, the same is offered to tax in the year of recovery. 8.2. Both sides heard, it is an undisputed fact that in support of the claim towards provision for fraud, the assessee had furnished a copy of the FIR. The AO rejected assessee's claim merely for the reason that assessee has not submitted any calculation in support of the claim. The CIT(A) while deleting the addition has referred to the decision of the CIT(A) in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15. In preceding assessment year, the CIT(A) decided this issue in favour of the assessee by placing reliance on various case laws and CBDT Circular no. 35DXLVII-20 dated 24.04.1965. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue, hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the same. The ld. DR has anxiously raised a concern that the assessee has not explained the treatment given on subsequent recovery of the amount involved in fraud. Though, no such objection was raised by the AO during assessment proceedings, the ld. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. PNB. The ld. Counsel submitted that the said establishment expenditure was incurred during the course of business of the assessee. The books of the assessee are subject to audit and the Auditors have not raised any objection in respect of the said expenditure claimed. The AO has not rejected assessee's books of account but has merely disallowed the expenditure on surmises and conjectures. After examination of assessment order, we find that the expenditure is claimed under the sub-heads like EPF, Medical Aid, LFC, Gratuity, etc. The AO has disallowed the claim as the assessee has failed to submit any clarification or nature of payment under the aforesaid sub-heads and no bills or vouchers were submitted before the AO to prove nature of expenditure and the genuineness of the expenditure claimed. In first appeal, the CIT(A) has allowed assessee's claim in a cryptic manner. In our considered view neither the nature of expenditure has not been properly explained by the assessee nor it is substantiated with documentary evidence, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the jurisdictional AO for verification. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, the assessee had made investment in tax free securities/mutual fund amounting to Rs. 107,15,568/-. The assessee made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 5,85,676/- u/s. 14A of the Act. The AO not being satisfied with the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee recomputed disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D at Rs. 63,06,563/-. In first appeal, the CIT(A) following the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 1984/Del/2019 decided on 19.10.2022 deleted the addition. We have already dealt with this issue while adjudicating appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the facts in the impugned assessment year are identical. In light of parity of facts, the findings given by us while adjudicating the issue in AY 2016-17 would mutatis mutandis apply to the assessment year under appeal. 15. In so far as the issues raised in grounds of appeal no. 4 to 10, relating to amortization of premium, provision for fraud/dacoity, and the assessee's eligibility to claim deduction u/s. 80P of the Act, both sides admitted that facts in the impugned assessment year are identical to the facts in AY 2016-17 and the submissions made in AY 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
