2012 (7) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition of Rs.427490/- made on account of disallowance of interest paid for non-business purposes. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 198000/- made on account of disallowance of rent as per provisions of sect ion 40(a) ( ia) of the Income- tax Act , 1961. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off ."   3. In ground No.1, revenue contended that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.427490/- made on account of disallowance of interest paid for non-business purposes. Ld. 'DR' referred to page 2, para 3 onwards, of the order of the CIT(A) dated 7.10.2010. 4. Ld. 'AR' , on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee, before him. 6. As the revenue has notfiled appeal against the said appellate order of the CIT(A) , on similar issue, we are of the considered opinion, that the revenue has accepted the finality of the issue in quest ion. Even otherwise, such financial expenses are eligible for deduct ion, as held by the CIT(A) , by referring to the provisions of Sect ion 2(13) of the Act . In view of the legal and factual discussions, and having regard to the findings of the CIT(A) and the acceptance of the findings of the CIT(A) , by revenue, on similar issue, in assessment year 2006-07, we do not find any merit , in the content ion raised by the revenue, in this ground of appeal . Consequently, findings of the CIT(A) are upheld and this gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nded on 31.3.2007. Both ld. 'AR' and ld. 'DR' were of the opinion that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) . The relevant part of the decision is reproduced hereunder : "12. In view of the above judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, materials placed before us, arguments made by both the sides and in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, on comparison between the proposed and enacted provision, the only conclusion which I can reach is that the Legislature consciously replaced the words "amounts credited or paid" with the word "payable" in the final enactment. By changin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and enacted provision from the words "amount credited or paid" to "payable". Hence, in my view, my answer to the question referred by Hon'ble President to the Special Bench is as under: The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the date 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow which had been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of TDS." 9. We are of the considered opinion that the issue is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision in the Special Bench of ITAT Vishakhapatnam (supra) . In view of this, issue is restored to the file of the AO, for the purpose of adjudicating the same, strictly in terms of the ratio....