2023 (10) TMI 512 - AT - Income Tax

Levying interest for delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account - CIT(A) confirmed denying the claim of assessee as deduction - HELD THAT - CIT(A) in order to come to such conclusion placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Chennai Properties Investment Ltd. 1998 (4) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which held the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure , consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee is liable to be denied - No infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Penalty imposed by the RBI - non adherence to certain directives issued by the RBI - CIT(A) remanded the issue to the file of AO to consider and allow the penal interest if the payment relates to first default, if not but deny the claim of the impugned order - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to remand the issue to the file of AO as provided under the provisions of section 251 of the Act. We note that it is settled principle that the CIT(A) has to dispose off an appeal against the order of assessment either he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but however, no jurisdiction is conferred by the statute in remanding the issue to the file of AO. As there was no finding by the CIT(A), in our opinion, the issue requires adjudication by the CIT(A) and pass an order, in accordance with law - Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purpose. Employees Stock Expenses (ESOP) - assessee claimed as business expenditure - assessee bank issued equity shares to its employees under ESOP Scheme at discount - HELD THAT - CIT(A) held the issue of employees stock option is an allowable deduction in computing the income under the head profits and gains of business and profession. DR did not bring on record any contrary to the finding of the CIT(A) in placing reliance on the order of Special Bench of Bangalore, ITAT in the case of Biocon Ltd. 2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE and SSI Capital Ltd. ( 2004 (12) TMI 680 - ITAT CHENNAI - No infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Broken period interest paid on Held to Maturity (HTM) as an allowable deduction - AO disallowed interest levied between the time gap of actual disbursal of the first installment of the loan and the time of the commencement of EMIs is broken period interest as expenditure - HELD THAT - CIT(A) correctly by placing reliance on case of Prathamik Shikshan Sahara Bank Ltd. 2017 (5) TMI 1695 - ITAT PUNE held that the assessee is entitled to claim same as business expenditure.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the disallowance of interest paid for delayed TDS payment and addition of penalty imposed by RBI in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The judgment also addresses the allowability of Employees Stock Expenses (ESOP) and broken period interest paid on Held to Maturity (HTM) in the context of business expenditure.

Disallowed Interest on Delayed TDS Payment:
The AO disallowed the interest paid for delayed TDS as business expenditure, which was confirmed by CIT(A) based on the decision of the High Court of Madras. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that interest paid on delayed TDS to the Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, thus denying the deduction claimed by the assessee.

Addition of Penalty Imposed by RBI:
The AO disallowed the penalty paid to RBI as business expenditure, which was remanded by CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to remand the issue to the AO and decided to remand it to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes.

Employees Stock Expenses (ESOP) Allowability:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's challenge against CIT(A) holding ESOP as an allowable expense under section 37(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on various decisions and precedents, finding no infirmity in the order.

Broken Period Interest on Held to Maturity (HTM):
The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's challenge regarding the broken period interest paid on HTM, allowing the deduction based on the Pune ITAT Benches' decision in a similar case. The Tribunal found no fault in CIT(A) following the precedent and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, while both appeals by the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 3rd August 2023.