TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this combined order. For convenient and seriatim disposal of appeals, we will first take up the appeals of the Revenue and thereafter the appeals by the assessee. ITA Nos. 560 & 561/PN/2014 (Appeals by Revenue) 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue in appeals for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are identical. The findings given by us in the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 would mutatis mutandis apply to the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010-11. 3. The ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue in its appeal reads as under: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of gain arising out of repurchase of debentures, relying on the decision of High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 310, when the facts are distinguishable from that of the assessee." 4. The assessee during the financial year 2007-08 issued 52,48,365 debentures on right basis. During the period between March 24 and March 26, 2008 the assessee repu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee with regard to addition of Rs. 58,76,558/- and Rs. 40,654,144/- by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate Ltd. reported as 285 ITR 310 (Kar.). 6. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not claimed deduction u/s. 41 of the Act. Therefore, condition laid down u/s. 41(1) will not apply in the present case. In support of his submissions, the ld. DR of the assessee has placed reliance on the following case laws: i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hukumchand Mohanlal, 82 ITR 624 (SC); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Estate Mooriad Chalapuram (SC), 161 ITR 155 (SC); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Ganesa Chettiar, 133 ITR 103 (Mad.). 7. On the other hand Shri Percy Pardiwalla appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. AR submitted that by repurchasing of debentures at a lesser price before maturity the assessee has pre-poned its liability and has thus, saved future expenditure by way of interest which has been credited to the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debentures of Rs. 10 each at par. These debentures were redeemable during the accounting years corresponding to the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 at the rate of 30 percent, 30 percent and 40 percent, respectively of the face value thereof. During the period of redemption, the assessee- company purchased some of these debentures through a nominee at a price less than the face value thereof. The assessee credited the difference amount between the face value of the debentures purchased and the cost thereof in its books as surplus arising on redemption of debentures. The assessee credited these amounts to the profit and loss account but did not form part of the income by way of capital gains receipt and hence sought for deduction of the amount from computation of the income. The Assessing Officer held that the surplus amounts with the nominees of the assessee constituted its revenue receipts and should therefore be included within its business income. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the surplus amounts were not chargeable to tax either as revenue or even as capital gain. The Department took the matter in appeal before Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account, when the assessee did not actually receive any income, we are unable to accede to the submission of Sri Seshachala that it constitutes income under section 2(24) of the Act. Having regard to the reality of the situation, as the assessee has not derived any income, he is entitled not to treat it as an income. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in its conclusion that the said surplus amount reflected in the balance-sheet cannot be treated as an income of the assessee. We do not find any error in the said conclusion reached by the Tribunal." 8.3 In the case of Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) the assessee-company had issued non-convertible debentures (NCDs) some of which were forfeited by it due to non- payment of call money. It credited the amount received earlier on such NCDs as the amount written back and set it off against the expenditure. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as income exigible to tax on the ground that the assessee had derived monetary benefits; and that even though the commercial production was not commenced, the monies were borrowed through NCDs for the business purpose. Accordingly, he made addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reof." 10. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had written off following bad debts : i. Sundry debit balance written off Rs. 30,17,702/-. ii. Normal bad debts written off Rs. 67,29,73,245/-. 11. The contention of the assessee is that amount of Rs. 30,17,702/- represents petty balances written off from various hirers accounts on final settlement. However, the assessee could not submit party wise details on the ground that the record was too voluminous. The amount of bad debts was quantified on the basis of cheques dishonoured. The Assessing Officer disallowed bad debts written off in respect of sundry debtors on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove that unrealized cheques represent bad debts. As regards disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 67,29,73,245/-, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the same i.e. Rs. 13,45,94,649/-by following assessment order in the preceding assessment year. In first appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made on both the counts under the head bad debts written off. In respect of Rs. 30,17,702/- the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.59,15,27,873/- 18. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish details viz. name and address of the debtors, amount of debt, date on which the debt was taken, date on which the debt taken bad and efforts made for recovery of the debts. After considering the replies of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that (i) complete postal addresses; and, (ii) evidence regarding efforts made by the assessee for recovery of the amounts were not furnished. The Assessing Officer also noted that in the immediately preceding assessment year of 2006-07, an amount of Rs. 28,08,237/- was disallowed on this issue. In this background, the Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow 20% of the total debts i.e. Rs. 11,83,05,574/- (20% of Rs. 59,15,27,873/-) and added the same to assessee's total income. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition noticing that his predecessor in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 had deleted a similar addition. Against such order of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 19. At the outset, it was a common point between the parties that for assessment year 2006-07, a similar deletion made by the CIT(A) has since been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f vehicles, etc. The claim of the assessee was in terms of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. Section 36(1)(vii) as it stood for the assessment year under consideration was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra). As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. In the present case, the aforesaid aspect has been fulfilled by the assessee, as is clearly emerging from the findings of the CIT(A). The debts in question have been written-off as irrecoverable in the account books of the assessee and this aspect is also not disputed by the Assessing Officer. In fact, as per the Assessing Officer, the debts had become bad in the preceding assessment year and according to him, it is incorrect that the same have been claimed as write-off in the instant assessment year. Be that as it may, it clearly establishes that the debts have been written off in the account books as irrecoverable, which squarely is covered by the legal position propounded by the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer on mere conjectures and surmises. It is quite clear that the claim of the assessee for the bad debts written-off is in terms of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. It is also quite clear that the debts in question have been actually written-off as irrecoverable in the account books of the assessee. It is also not disputed by the Revenue that the impugned debts have arisen in the course of carrying on assessee's business of financing. In the background of the aforesaid undisputed facts, in our considered opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra). Therefore, having regard to the factual position and the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra), we find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition. We hereby affirm the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly the Revenue fails on this Ground." The issue in present appeal is identical to the issue adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in earlier assessment years. The ld. DR has not placed on record any material to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) or 37(1) of the Act whereas the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (supra) deals with accrual of income in relation to an asset which has been classified as non-performing asset in terms of prudential norms issued by RBI. Thereafter, the ratio of the decision of ITAT Pune 'B' Bench which is jurisdictional Tribunal is found in para 9 of the order which is reproduced for the sake of clarity. "................The assessee shall satisfy the Assessing Officer that it is a case where the amount of Rs. 19,95,596/- represents unrecognized income on a non-performing asset classified in terms of prudential norms of RBI and it is not a case where a provision of equivalent amount has been debited in the Profit & Loss account and claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) or 37(1) of the Act. In case the assessee succeeds in demonstrating the former situation, then no addition would be warranted in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd (supra) and in other case, the Assessing Officer shall take appropriate decision in accordance with our aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 1273/PN/2012 (supra) had dismissed the similar ground raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the amount representing unrecognized income on NPA classified as per the RBI guidelines cannot be assessed on actual basis. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal are as under: "27. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The assessee before us is a NBFC, and sum and substance of the dispute relates to the stand of the assessee that interest income relating to certain hire purchase transactions did not accrue to the assessee because such transactions were classified as NPAs following the RBI guidelines. When the matter came up for the first time before the Tribunal for assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 and 2000-01 to 2003-04, vide a common order dated 31.03.2010 the issue was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be considered in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and also allowing the assessee to demonstrate the justification and cri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16. Since, the issue in the present appeal is identical, we respectfully follow the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and uphold the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,47,09,172/- (Rs. 6,18,88,570/- in assessment year 2010-11) being interest pertaining to Non-performing assets. Accordingly, ground no. 3 raised in the appeal of the Revenue is rejected. 17. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. ITA No. 578/PN/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) 18. Now, we proceed on to decide the appeals filed by the assessee. The first issue raised by the assessee in appeal relates to disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee has received dividend income from various companies and interest on tax free bonds. The total tax free income earned by the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 is Rs. 36,34,502/-. The contention of the assessee is that no expenditure has been incurred on earning exempt income, therefore, no disallowance u/s. 14A is warranted. However, the assessee has disallowed Rs. 50,047/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to disallowance u/s. 14A had come up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal after considering the issue in appeal deleted the disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 20. On the other hand ld. DR vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. However, the ld. DR admitted that the issue relating to disallowance u/s. 14A was adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09. 21. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue relating to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1676/PN/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 decided on 30-06-2014. In assessment year 2008-09, disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D was made under similar circumstances. The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue with regard to applicability of provisions of Rule 8D as well as the manner in which the satisfaction has to be recorded in terms of sub-section (2) of sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income. In-fact, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), though holding that the provisions of rule 8D of the Rules were applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards, has also laid down that invoking of rule 8D of the Rules in order to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is neither automatic and nor is triggered merely because of the presence of an exempt income in the hands of the assessee. The invoking of rule 8D of the Rules is permissible only in circumstances where the Assessing Officer records the satisfaction mandated in section 14A(2) of the Act with regard to the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. (supra) has also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) and opined that the Assessing Officer can determine the amount of expenditure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has to be objectively arrived at on the basis of those accounts and after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances. The application of the prescribed method arises in a situation where the claim made by the assessee in respect of expenditure which is relatable to the earning of income which does not form part of the total income under the Act is found to be incorrect. In such a situation a method had to be devised for apportioning the expenditure incurred by the assessee between what is incurred in relation to the earning of taxable income and that which is incurred in relation to the earning of non-taxable income. As a matter of fact, the memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2006, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular dated December 28, 2006, state that since the existing provisions of section 14A did not provide a method of computing the expenditure incurred in relation to income which did not form part of the total income, there was a considerable dispute between taxpayers and the Department on the method of determining such expenditure. It was in this background that sub-section (2) was inserted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute the disallowance is conditional on the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, but it has also been held that such satisfaction is to be an "objective satisfaction". Therefore, the satisfaction contemplated in section 14A(2) of the Act before the Assessing Officer can invoke rule 8D of the rules in order to compute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, is an objective satisfaction which shall be based on relevant considerations and it shall spell out reasons for his conclusion. [underlined for emphasis by us] 43. In the background of the aforesaid legal position, we may now examine the facts of the present case. In the present case, assessee has earned an income of Rs. 1,09,58,664/- which is an exempted income under Chapter-III of the Act and therefore it does form part of the total income under the Act. In the computation of income, having regard to section 14A of the Act, assessee determined the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income at Rs. 57,600/-. The Assessing Officer did not find it acceptable and instead determined the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son that he did not agree with the contention of the assessee. No reasons whatsoever have been advanced by the Assessing Officer as to why he does not agree with the determination of expenditure made by the assessee. As seen earlier, the satisfaction mandated in section 14A(2) of the Act required the Assessing Officer to record a finding that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The determination of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income made by the assessee has been mechanically rejected without recording any objective satisfaction. This aspect of the matter, in our view, clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has not recorded the required objective satisfaction in regard to the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee that the expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income was Rs. 57,600/-. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer to invoke rule 8D of the Rules for the purposes of computing the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is untenable, as it suffers from absence of an essential requirement of sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same is read with the discussion of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein the satisfaction contemplated is stated to be an "objective satisfaction", it is quite clear that what is required of the Assessing Officer is to explicitly record reasons for his conclusion. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has merely observed in one line that he does "not agree with the contention of the assessee". Ostensibly, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has discussed the issue in the assessment order, the objective satisfaction contemplated in section 14A(2) of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, in our view, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the plea of the assessee that there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as required in terms of section 14A of the Act before invoking rule 8D of the Rules. Secondly, the CIT(A) has also proceeded on the basis that from the assessment year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2008-09 onwards application of rule 8D of the Rules is automatic. No doubt, rule 8D of the Rules is effective from assessment year 2008-09 onwards, as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012 (supra) had considered this issue and thereafter remitted the same to the file of Assessing Officer to allow credit for the tax deducted at source in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 657 of 2013 decided on 06-05-2014. 25. On the other hand ld. DR strongly defended the action of the authorities below in restricting credit of TDS as per Form 26AS. 26. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The ld. AR of the assessee has contended that the issue relating to grant of TDS credit was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2008-09. After perusal of the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 (supra), we find that this issue was remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer to allow the credit for the TDS on behalf of the assessee in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others (supra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 1079 of 2012 titled Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (supra) now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd. The ld. Counsel representing the Department before the Hon'ble High Court fairly admitted that the question 'C' reproduced above is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (supra). Thus, in the facts of the case we remit this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (supra). Thus, the additional ground raised in the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 29. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 579/PN/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) 30. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground nos. 1 and 2 relates to disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Similar issue was raised by the assessee in appeal for the assessment year 2009-10. The findings given by us in the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2009-10 on the issue would mut....