Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. Opp. Bhidhanjan Hanuman,Nikol Road Bapunagar,Ahmedabad Vs. The Dy.CIT Ahmedabad
November, 19th 2013
          ,  Û `',  
          ,
      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
    AHMEDABAD BENCH " C " BENCH, AHMEDABAD

    ¢ ^ ..,    ^   , Û  
    BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And
         SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

               ./I.T.A.No.2701/Ahd/2010
          ( [ [ / Assessment Year : 2007-08)
The Saurashtra Co-    / The Dy.CIT
op.Bank Ltd.           Vs. Ahmedabad
Opp. Bhidhanjan
Hanuman,Nikol Road
Bapunagar,Ahmedabad
    . /  . / PAN/GIR No. :            AAATT 5544J
    ( /Appellant)      ..      (× / Respondent)

              / Appellant by        :         Shri S.N.Soparkar
           ×   /Respondent by :            Shri J.P. Jhangid, Sr.DR

             / Date of Hearing       : 28/10/2013
             /Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2013


                            / O R D E R

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

      This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the
Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XVI, Ahmedabad (`CIT(A)'
for short) dated 12/08/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2007-
08. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
      The learned CIT(A) has erred in:
      1. Upholding the disallowance of Rs.31,063/- paid for printing of
          annual reports of the Bank u/s.40(a)(ia), though the same is not
          liable for TDS u/s.194C.
      2. Upholding the disallowance of Rs.1,15,551/- reimbursed to the
          Reserve Bank of India through The Ahmedabad District Co-
          operative Bank Ltd. for MICR and other cheque processing charges
                                                      ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                   The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                     -2-

            u/s.40(a)(ia), though tax on the said reimbursements has been
            deducted by the Reserve Bank of India while making payment to
            Bank of Baroda who has done the processing work.
        3. Upholding the estimated addition for accrued interest on the NPA
            accounts of Rs.46,19,002/- (Rs.25,61,722/- on opening balance of
            NPA accounts which has accrued during earlier previous years and
            Rs.20,57,280/- for the previous year), though no interest has
            accrued to the Bank.
        4. Upholding the interest u/s.234B.
        The appellant reserves rights to add, alter, modify or drop any of the
        grounds of appeal.


2.      Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up
for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax
Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order
dated 30.12.2009, thereby the Assessing Officer(AO) made disallowance
u/s.40(1)(ia) of the Act of Rs.31,063/-, disallowance of Rs.1,15,551/-
u/s.40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax and made addition on account of
interest accrued but not offered to tax of Rs.46,19, 002/-. Against this,
the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering
the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal.





3.      The first ground is against the disallowance of expenditure
amounting to Rs.31,063/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of
tax in respect of the payment made for printing of Annual Report of the
Bank.     The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is
squarely covered in favour assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench of Delhi rendered in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Eastern
Medikit Ltd. reported at (2012) 19 taxmann.com 286 (Delhi).
                                                     ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                  The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                       Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                     -3-

3.1. On the contrary, Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below
and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the authorities
below as the assessee was required to deduct the tax but assessee had not
deducted the tax.


4.    We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material
available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.
We find that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the case of Dy.CIT vs.
Eastern Medikit Ltd.(supra) has decided this issue by observing as
under:-

      "14. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made
      before us. The facts are that payments have been made to two parties
      for preparation of diaries, catalogues and folders as per requirement of
      the assessee. No material was supplied as specifically stated before the
      ld. CIT(Appeals). The revenue has not brought any material on record
      to dispute this fact. Therefore, the manufacturing and supplying does
      not amount to a works contract. The AO has also referred to
      Notification no. 275/51/2009-IT(B) dated 07.10.2009, which points out
      that the provisions contained in section 194C have been amended by
      Finance Bill, 2009, with effect from 01.10.2009 with a view to include
      within the ambit of "work" the manufacturing or supplying a product
      according to requirement or specification of a customer by using
      material purchased from such customer. However, in respect of the
      work-contract mentioned in clause (iv)(e) of the Explanation, tax shall
      be deducted at source on the invoice value excluding the value of the
      material, if such value is mentioned separately in the invoice; or on the
      whole of the invoice, if the value of material is not mentioned separately
      in the invoice. Obviously, this provision comes into force in respect of
      works contract executed on or after 01.10.2009. This amendment is not
      applicable to the proceedings of assessment year 2007-08, which are
      being decided. Therefore, it is held that the expenditure was not in
      respect of a works contract, therefore, the assessee was not obliged to
      deduct tax at source. In other words, the amount involved in the
      payment could not have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). Thus, this
      ground is also dismissed."
                                                    ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                 The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                      Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                   -4-

4.1.   In this case also, the assessee has made payment for printing of
Annual Report. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Coordinate
Bench, we decide this issue in favour of assessee and direct the AO to
delete the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure
u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. This ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed.

5.     The second ground is against the disallowance of expenditure of
Rs.1,15,551/-made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction
of the tax.   The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that this
expenditure was nothing but reimbursement. He submitted that clearing
of the MICR and other cheques or instruments is being done by the
Reserve Bank of India. The appellant Bank is not a member of the
Clearing House.      The appellant is therefore a sub-member of The
Ahmedabad Dist.Co-op.Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad.            The appellant Bank
sends MICR and other cheques or instruments to The Ahmedabad
Dist.Co-op.Bank Ltd. which in turn sends the same to Bank of Baroda
on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank of India pays
the processing charges to Bank of Baroda and deducts tax at source on
the total payments made on behalf of all the Banks. The Reserve Bank of
India recovers proportionate processing charges from respective banks.
He submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Ahmedabad rendered in the case of
Karnavati Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT reported at (2012) 132 ITD 486
(Ahd.).

5.1.   On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR strongly supported the orders of the
authorities below.
                                                      ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                   The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                     -5-

6.     We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material
available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.
We find that the similar issue was before the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench,
wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held as under:-

       "HELD-I
       The assessee was only a sub-member of the clearing house. It has
       availed the services of MICR clearing from a member of the clearing
       house, namely, B. As far as the legal position of deduction of tax at
       source is concerned, there is no dispute that tax is required to be
       deducted from MICR charges. Since B was directly dealing with the
       clearing house, it had deducted the tax at source on payment of MICR
       charges to the clearing house. Consequent thereupon, the assessee was
       required to reimburse the MICR charges to B. The said reimbursement
       charges were inclusive of tax deducted at source as well. In
       confirmation thereto, B had also issued a letter to the assessee.
       [Para 6]
       From the said letter, it is clear that as far as the payment by the
       assessee was concerned, it was nothing but in the nature of
       reimbursement of bank charges. Since the MICR charges were merely
       reimbursed by the assessee, the latter was not required to deduct the tax
       at source on payment of reimbursement. Otherwise also, it would
       tantamount to double deduction of tax at source on the same payment of
       MICR bank charges. In the result, the lower authorities were wrong in
       disallowing the claim of reimbursement of charges. [Para 6.1]"

6.1.   Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench, we are not inclined to take a different view than taken
by the Tribunal, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the AO
is directed to delete the addition. Thus, this ground of the assessee is
allowed.

7.     The third ground is against the confirmation of addition of
Rs.46,19,002/- being the estimated addition for accrual of interest on
NPA accounts.       The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the
                                                      ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                   The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                      -6-

authorities below have grossly erred in making the addition.                   He
submitted that the decision of the authorities below is contrary to the
various judicial pronouncements. He placed reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Urjit
Investments Ltd. in Income Tax Reference No.107 of 1995, dated
13/07/2006 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench
rendered in the case of Karnavati Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT reported
at (2012) 134 ITD 486 (Ahd.).

7.1.   On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities
below.

8.     We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material
available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.
We find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided this issue vide paragraph No.4.3
of his order as under:-




       "4.3. I have considered the submissions made by the appellant and
       observations made by the AO. The appellant also relied on decision of
       Gujarat High Court in the case of Urjit Investments Pvt.Ltd. ITR
       No.107 of 1995, dated 13-7-2006 where after considering the decision
       of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is stated that if the recovery of principal
       amount is doubtful then interest would not accrue and it should not be
       charged hypothetical interest income. This decision is not applicable
       because in that case the loans were sticky whereas in the case of the
       appellant, it is treating loans whose two installments are not received as
       NPA. Such loans cannot be called sticky or bad. The appellant being
       co-operative bank is not covered by the provisions of IT Act applicable
       to Schedules Banks. The decision of UCO Bank & Gothara Electricity
       are therefore not applicable. Hence the action of the AO is correct.
       The ground of appeal is dismissed."
                                                      ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                   The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                        Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                      -7-

8.1   In our considered view, the decision of the ld.CIT(A) is contrary to
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in
the case of CIT vs. Urjit Investments Pvt.Ltd.(supra). We find that the
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the said case followed the decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Godhra Electricity
Co.Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (1997) 225 ITR 746(SC) and the decision of
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Abbas
Wazir (P.) Ltd. reported at (2005) 274 ITR 448 (All.) and held as under:-

      "9. From these two judgements, it would clearly appear that in the
      given set of facts and by not applying the principles in their generality,
      the income, which is receivable but not received and which is accrued
      in a given case, may not be deemed to be an income. If the assessee in
      his wisdom comes to the conclusion that it would be useless to carry
      forward the amount of debt and also make entry relating to interest
      income, then, it would be an act of prudence on his part. Simply
      because, for a particular year, the Income Tax Officer does not allow
      that deletion or deduction, it would not mean that for the later year, the
      assessee cannot prove the fact that he had not received any income on
      the said bad debt.

      10. It is also to be noted that the finding in relation to the bad debt is a
      finding based on appreciation of facts. The Tribunal has recorded a
      finding that in view of the submissions made by the assessee, the debtor
      is traceless and despite their efforts, it became impossible for the
      assessee to recover the debts, therefore, the assessee was obliged to
      write off the debts as bad debts. If the finding of fact is that the debt
      had become bad debt, then, income on bad debt cannot be presumed.

      11. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we answer the question referred
      to us by saying that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts
      in canceling the disallowance of present amounting to Rs.78,840/- even
      when the Income Tax Officer had found that the debt itself had not
      become bad. We must observe that the Tribunal has given cogent
      reasons to hold that the debt had become bad. The reference is
      answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee."
                                                          ITA No.2701/Ahd/2010
                                       The Saurashtra Co-op.Bank Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT
                                                            Asst.Year ­ 2007-08
                                         -8-

8.1.     Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court, we therefore allow this ground of the
assessee's appeal.

9.       The fourth ground is against charging of interest u/s.234B of the
Act. The ground being consequential in nature does not require any
separate adjudication, the same is rejected as such.

10.      In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

       Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page


                  Sd/-                                             Sd/-
             (..)                                              (  )
                                                              Û 
        ( N.S. SAINI )                                     ( KUL BHARAT )
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad;               Dated    15/ 11 /2013

.., .../T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS


    /
      Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.      / The Appellant
2.     × / The Respondent.
3.        / Concerned CIT
4.      () / The CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad
5.      ,   ,  / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6.     [  / Guard file.
                                                                    / BY ORDER,

                ×  //True Copy//

                                                   /  (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
                                                   /
                                             ,  / ITAT, Ahmedabad
                                             ,

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions