2016 (4) TMI 572 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of draft payable more than 3 years - Held that - Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2013 (4) TMI 140 - Kerala High Court), we are of the opinion that the amount of stale drafts found in the hands of the assessee cannot be treated as liability or provision for liability and it cannot be carried on for indefinite period and it has to be treated as income of the assessee. However, we make it clear that whenever the assessee has to make payment against the stale drafts at any time in future, the same has to be claimed as expenditure. Addition made towards payment of donation - Held that - The assessee bank has debited to the profit and loss account an amount of ₹ 5,51,690/- towards donation. The assessee bank has produced receipt to the extent of ₹ 3,00,000/- only. The Assessing Officer has observed that deduction on account of donation is allowed at 50% i.e., ₹ 1,50,000/- only. He also observed that since the deduction is required to be considered under Chapter VIA separately, the entire amount of ₹ 5,51,690/- is required to be added back and ₹ 1,50,000/- to be allowed as deduction. Since the assessee bank itself has added ₹ 3,00,000/- only in the computation memo, the Assessing Officer has added back the balance amount of ₹ 2,51,690/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the amount was actually paid for advertisement charges in the Souvenirs and treated it as donation and contended that the advertisement charges in souvenirs are deductible in view of the CBDT circular. If it is so, what prevented the assessee bank to claim the same under advertisement charges rather than claiming it as donation . The ld. Counsel for the assessee has not able to give any convincing reply to the specific query raised by the Bench. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the authorities below and accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 36 - working out of allowable deduction - treatment to amount advanced by the rural branches of the bank - Held that - Intention behind the introduction of section 36(1)(viia) was to encourage rural advances and to aid creation of the provision for bad debts in relation to such rural branches. In the case of provision made towards non-rural debts, no deduction can be allowed as there is no specific provision in the Income Tax Act to allow the same. This indicates that the provision made towards urban debt should be added back and allowed only when bad debts are really written off. The question of double deduction being allowed does not arise therein at all, because it is allowed only on actual write off. The Hon ble Apex Court has also held that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) apply only in respect of rural debts. in view of the option exercised by the assessee that it can claims deduction on doubtful debts as per option (b) i.e. 7.5% of Gross Total Income and 10% of aggregate average rural advances, the Assessing Officer has rightly worked out the allowable deduction, which is less than that of the provision made by the assessee as doubtful debts, allowed the deduction of bad debts for all assessment years and remaining balance was brought to tax. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer for all the above assessment years Addition made towards payment made to SEBI - Held that - Registration with SEBI is mandatory for the purpose of dealing in securities and stocks. The payment made to SEBI is in the nature of fee for the purpose of enabling the assessee to carry out its business. The payment of rernewal fee is only for the purpose of continuing the business as a merchant banker. Registering with SEBI is only to identify the person who is dealing in securities. Therefore, in our opinion, the subscription to SEBI will not give any enduring benefit to the assessee. In our opinion, the fee paid by the assessee is only a fee paid to a regulatory authority, therefore, it is a revenue expenditure. By the payment of fee to SEBI, the assessee is not getting any capital asset. Therefore, in our opinion, the subscription made to SEBI has to be allowed as revenue expenditure.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment.
2. Disallowance of interest paid to SIDBI and NABARD.
3. Disallowance of lease equalization charges.
4. Disallowance of deposit mobilization expenses.
5. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment.
6. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
7. Disallowance of expenditure towards EPABX.
8. Disallowance of amortization expenditure.
9. Disallowance of loss on sale of investment.
10. Disallowance of brokerage paid on purchase of government securities.
11. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii).
12. Disallowance of surplus on sale of jewelry.
13. Disallowance of entertainment expenses.
14. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 115WE(3).
15. Applicability of section 115JB to banking companies.
16. Disallowance of draft payable more than 3 years.
17. Disallowance of provision for bonus.
18. Disallowance of payment of donation.
19. Charging of interest under sections 234B, 234C, and 234D.
20. Charging of interest under section 220.
21. Disallowance of software expenses.
22. Allowability of deduction under section 36(1)(viia).
23. Disallowance of payment made to SEBI.
24. Addition towards interest on non-performing assets.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press the issue of reopening of assessment for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2004-05. Therefore, the issue was dismissed as not pressed.

2. Disallowance of Interest Paid to SIDBI and NABARD:
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and held that the payment of interest to SIDBI and NABARD should be allowed in the year of actual payment. The ground was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Disallowance of Lease Equalization Charges:
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of lease equalization charges in accordance with law. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

4. Disallowance of Deposit Mobilization Expenses:
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The ground was allowed.

5. Disallowance of Provision for Leave Encashment:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the provision created was not a certain liability but a contingent one. The ground was dismissed.

6. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had decided the issue based on the assessee's own case for earlier years. The ground was dismissed.

7. Disallowance of Expenditure towards EPABX:
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the ground, noting that the expenditure was capital in nature.

8. Disallowance of Amortization Expenditure:
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench and allowed the ground, directing the deletion of the disallowance.

9. Disallowance of Loss on Sale of Investment:
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and allowed the ground, directing the deletion of the disallowance.

10. Disallowance of Brokerage Paid on Purchase of Government Securities:
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and allowed the ground, directing the deletion of the disallowance.

11. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 36(1)(viii):
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the banking companies were not included as public companies for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viii) for the assessment year 2004-05. The ground was dismissed.

12. Disallowance of Surplus on Sale of Jewelry:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the surplus belonged to the assessee and could not be treated as a liability. The ground was dismissed.

13. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenses:
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and deleted the addition. The ground was allowed.

14. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 115WE(3):
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of validity of reopening of assessment under section 115WE(3) in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

15. Applicability of Section 115JB to Banking Companies:
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the applicability of section 115JB. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

16. Disallowance of Draft Payable More Than 3 Years:
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and dismissed the ground, noting that the amount of stale drafts could not be treated as a liability.

17. Disallowance of Provision for Bonus:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the provided text.

18. Disallowance of Payment of Donation:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee could not provide a convincing reply regarding the nature of the expenditure. The ground was dismissed.

19. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The Tribunal deleted the interest levied under section 234B for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03, noting that the TDS and advance tax paid were in excess of the tax payable. For the assessment year 2004-05, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to rework the interest. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to rework the interest under section 234C on the income returned. The interest under section 234D was deleted for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03, and the Assessing Officer was directed to rework the interest for the assessment year 2009-10.

20. Charging of Interest under Section 220:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest under section 220 in terms of the decision in the case of Vikrant Tyres. The ground was allowed.

21. Disallowance of Software Expenses:
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and other cases, holding that software expenses were in the nature of revenue expenditure. The ground was dismissed.

22. Allowability of Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia):
The Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A) and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, noting that the deduction should be worked out on the average advances made by rural branches during the year. The ground was allowed.

23. Disallowance of Payment Made to SEBI:
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision and held that the payment made to SEBI was revenue expenditure. The ground was dismissed.

24. Addition towards Interest on Non-Performing Assets:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground as not maintainable, noting that it did not emanate from the assessment order.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the Revenue were partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes, dismissed, or allowed based on the specific issues addressed. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning and followed relevant case laws and precedents in arriving at its decisions.

← Previous Next →