AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up two appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14 in ITA Nos.521 and 522/Bang/2018. Regarding these two appeals of the Revenue, learned DR of the Revenue supported the Assessment Order whereas learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). She also pointed out that even as per grounds raised by the Revenue, being ground No.3 in both these two years, this is the contention of the Revenue that learned CIT(A) has erred in giving relief by considering the tribunal order in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 and 200910 while the same issues are pending before the Hon'ble High Court for adjudication. It was submitted that this is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal order based on which relief is allowed by learned CIT(A) is stayed or reversed by Hon'ble High Court and therefore, no intervention is called for in the order of CIT(A) in these two years in respect of these two appeals of the Revenue. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. For ready reference, we reproduce the grounds raised by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amortization of premium paid on Government securities in an allowable expenditure ignoring the para 29vi) of CBDT Instruction no. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A), has erred in holding amortintion of premium paid on Government securities over remaining life of the securities as an allowable expenditure ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case ofVijaya Bank Vs. addl. ClT 187 ITR 541 (SC). 6. Any other facts and grounds which may arise during the case. 4. From ground No.3 reproduced in both the years, it is seen that in the ground itself, the Revenue is also accepting that the relief is allowed by the CIT(A) on the basis of the Tribunal order in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10 and this is not the claim of the Revenue that this Tribunal order for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2009-10 is stayed or reversed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and under these facts, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) in respect of the issue raised by the revenue in these two appeals. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 6. Now we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed CIT (A) further erred in disallowing interest paid on deposits of Rs. 2,89,00,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) in spite of appellant obtaining form 15G/15H from depositors. 7. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 234D of the Act. 8. Without prejudice, the disallowances, addition as confirmed by the learned assessing officer are arbitrary, excessive and ought to be deleted in toto. 9. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 7. In the course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that ground No.3 in Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 496/B/2018 and ground No.2 in Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 1102/B/2018 is in respect of provision made on standard assets and this ground in both years is not pressed and accordingly, this ground in both years is rejected as not pressed. 8. She also submitted that ground No.1 in both the years is general for which no adjudication is called for. Thereafter, she submitted that as per ground No.2 in Assessment Year 2011 - 12 and ground No.3 in Assessment Year 201 2 - 13, the dispute is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required information was not made available by the assessee before AO and CIT(A) and therefore, in these two years also, the issue may be restored back to the file of AO/CIT (A) for fresh decision with similar direction. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the orders of authorities below 10. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para 6 to 9 from the Tribunal order in assesse's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No.592/Bang/2014 dated 06.05.2016 which is available on record. These paras read as under: "6. Ground No.3 is as under:- 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim towards provision for bad and doubtful debts without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not furnished complete details towards its claim and the learned CIT (A) erred in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT, 343 ITR 270 without appreciating the fact that the said decision was rendered in context to section 36(1) (vii). 7. It was submitted by the ld. DR of Revenue that the details available on pages 1 to 7 of the Paperbook were not available before the AO an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, the relevant ground on this issue is allowed for statistical purposes in both the years. 12. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the only remaining issue is as per ground No.6 in Assessment Year 2011 - 12 and ground No.5 in Assessment Year 2012 - 13 and this issue is regarding the disallowance of interest paid on bank deposits to the tune of Rs. 660 lakhs in Assessment Year 2011 - 12 and Rs. 289 lakhs in Assessment Year 2012 - 13 and this disallowance was made by the AO in both the years under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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. Regarding this issue, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in the case of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2/Bang/2017 dated 27.09.2017, copy submitted. Learned AR of the assessee drawn our attention to para 6 of this Tribunal order and it was pointed out that in that case, it was held by the Tribunal that if the Form 15G and 15H were filed before the respective CIT eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing of the Form 15G/15H which has to be filed before jurisdictional CITs within prescribed time. In this case the assessee failed to provide the information in time to complete the TPS verification process and to pass the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. Hence the disallowance made by the AO is in order and is upheld. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 3.2.2 From a perusal of the observations and findings rendered by the ld CIT(A) at para 5 and 6 of the impugned order for asst. year 2011-12 (Supra), it is amply clear that the AO completed the TDS assessment, and passed the orders u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for this year, admittedly without affording the assessee sufficient time and opportunity to collect the information from its 325 branches in respect of TDS deducted on interest payments and other relevant information for his consideration. It is further observed by the ld CIT(A) that in similar circumstances, the ld CIT(A) while disposing off the assessee's appeal for asst. year 2010-11 on identical issues had, after considering the assessee's submissions, directed the AO to verify the branch wise and deductee wise details of the inter....