ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI V. ALLAHABAD BANK NOW MERGED WITH INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI

ITA 1681/CHNY/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2106 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. NANDAKUMAR
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1675 and 1681/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 034. Vs. Allahabad Bank, Mazzanine 37, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Allahabad Bank Building, Kala Ghoda, Ford Mumbai 400 023. [PAN:AACCA8464F] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against separate common orders dated both dated 28.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. Since the issue raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed I.T.A. Nos.1675 & 1681/Chny/24 2 to hear all these appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. We find no representation on behalf of the Respondent - assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR basing on the material available on record. 4. First we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 1675/Chny/2024 for AY 2017-18 for adjudication. 5. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of one day. Upon hearing the ld. DR Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT, we are convinced that the Appellant – Revenue made out a case in explaining the reasons for the delay and hence, the delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 7. The ld. DR drew our attention to ground No. 10 and requested to take up the said ground as preliminary issue. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) sought for remand report from the Assessing Officer and without awaiting for the same, disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to verify all the claims concerning the I.T.A. Nos.1675 & 1681/Chny/24 3 ground raised by the Revenue before this Tribunal. He drew our attention to the e-mail letter dated 09.02.2024, on perusal of the same and impugned order in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.8, 9.1 to 9.10 and 11.1 to 11.8, we note that the ld. DR has rightly pointed that the ld. CIT(A) should have awaited for the remand report and taking into account of the same, should have decided the issues in accordance with law. Thus, ground No. 10 raised by the Revenue is allowed. 8. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow CSR expenses in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The ld. DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) sought for remand report from the Assessing Officer. Pending receipt of remand report, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the CSR expenses and allow the deduction. The ld. DR placed on record e-mail letter dated 09.02.2024 addressed to the ld. CIT(A) by the Assessing Officer requesting additional time for sending remand report upto 30.04.2024. The ld. DR argued that the ld. CIT(A), without considering the request, disposed off the appeal by directing the Assessing Officer to verify and allow deduction, which is not justified. I.T.A. Nos.1675 & 1681/Chny/24 4 10. We note that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in para 7.1 to 7.8 of the impugned order, wherein, we find that the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of payment and grant deduction to the extent of allowability under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We find force in the argument of the ld. DR that the ld. CIT(A) should gave awaited for the remand report and taking into account of the same, discussed the issue, but, however, again the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the said expenses, in our opinion is not justified. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass order after considering the remand report that may have been filed by the Assessing Officer. Thus ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground Nos. 4 to 7 raised by the Revenue in restricting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 12. The ld. DR adopted same argument as made in ground Nos. 2 & 3 above. 13. We note that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the said issue in para 9.1 to 9.10 and has rightly argued by the ld. DR that the ld. CIT(A), without awaiting for the remand report, directed the Assessing Officer to re- I.T.A. Nos.1675 & 1681/Chny/24 5 compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the ld. DR and in view of the same, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass order after considering the remand report that may have been filed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, ground Nos. 4 to 7 raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground Nos. 8 & 9 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in giving direction to the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 15. The ld. DR adopted same argument as made in ground Nos. 2 & 3 above. 16. We note that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the said issue in para 11 to 11.4 of the impugned order, wherein, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee towards bad debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act without awaiting for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass order after considering the remand report that may have been filed by the Assessing I.T.A. Nos.1675 & 1681/Chny/24 6 Officer. Thus, ground Nos. 8 and 9 raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Now, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 1681/Chny/2024 for adjudication. 18. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of two days. Upon hearing the ld. DR, we are convinced that the Appellant – Revenue made out a case in explaining the reasons for the delay and hence, the delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned. 19. We find the ground Nos. 2 to 4 raised by the Revenue are similar to the ground Nos. 8 and 9 in ITA No. 1675/Chny/2024 for AY 2017-18, wherein, we held that the order of the ld. CIT(A) again remanded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer is not justified. The view taken by us in the above mentioned paragraph is equally applicable to the grounds raised in this appeal also. Therefore, since there is no finding given by the ld. CIT(A), we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass order after considering the remand report that may have filed by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. Nos.1675 & 1681/Chny/24 7 20. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04 th September, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 04.09.2024 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.