DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Adiya Construction Company India Private Limited, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1701/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2477 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: L R AMJI RAO
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Question of law
• Section: 142(1); 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1701/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD. VS. ADITYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAFCA7323J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD DATE OF HEARING : 12-10-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-10-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - 1, HYDE RABAD, DATED 12-09-2016 FOR AY 2011-12. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SALE O F FLATS/VILLAS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 ON 30.09. 2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.86,61,520/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE C ASE WAS SELECTED UNDER CASS AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISS UED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ON 25.03.2013 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME RS.3,93,11, 974/-. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED AMOU NTS AND PAID 2 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. INTEREST. THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO P&L A /C WAS RS. 4,68,79,147/- WHICH CONSISTS OF PAYMENT TO FOLLOWIN G FINANCE COMPANIES:. M/S. DIWAN HOUSING FINANCE LTD (DHFL) : RS.2,80,91, 495/- INDIA BULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD : RS. 19,05,659/- HDFC BANK : RS.1,64,74,479/- CORPORATION BANK CC A/C : R S. 20,302/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST PA ID TO BANKS NEED NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TDS. HOWEVER, FOR PAYMENTS TO P RIVATE COMPANIES, TDS SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESS EE. AO OPINED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TDS ON INTEREST PAID TO M/S. INDIA BULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD RS.19,05,659/- A ND M/S. DIWAN HOUSING FINANCE LTD RS.2,80,91,495/-. 2.2 THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT THEY PAID IN CHEQUES , IT FORMING PART OF EMI AND RELIED ON SPECIAL BENCH CASE OF M ERYLIN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT, THE CASE OF CIT VS JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS S YNDICATE, ITA NO.352/H/2014 ORDER DATED 24.06.2014 (A.P.HC) AND S PR PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD VS ACIT, ITA NO.351/H/15 ORDER DATED 24.06.2015. SINCE THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN 'PAID', HENCE NEED NOT BE BROUGHT UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). 2.3 REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AGAINST THE SAID PAYMENTS, UNDER 194A OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE INTEREST WAS PART OF THE PREDETERMINED EMIS PAID BY WAY OF POST DATED CHEQUES AND THAT THE BREAKUP OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPLE COMP ONENTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THEM AND HENCE THEY WERE NOT IN A PO SITION TO DEDUCT 3 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. TAX AT SOURCE AND THAT SINCE THE WORKING OF PRINCIP AL, INTEREST AND TAX DEDUCTION THEREON ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING AND PAYING THE TAX AT SOURCE IS NOT THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL IN STITUTIONS HAVE ALREADY PAID THE TAX, THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE A ND NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS STRENGTH IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE RECIPIENTS WERE WELL KNOWN COMPANIES AND SINCE THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID, THEY NEED NOT BE BROUGHT U/S 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) LD. CIT(APPEALS)ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OR KNOWLE DGE OF INTEREST ELEMENT IN EACH EMI AND HENCE THE APPELLAN T IS NOT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE. (II) LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENT AND INTEREST COMPONENT IN EA CH EMI ARE ALWAYS MADE AVAILABLE EITHER AT THE TIME OF SANCTIO N OF THE LOAN OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE BORROWER LATER AND THEREFO RE IT IS THE ASSESSEE BORROWER WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM INTEREST PAYMENT CREDIT AND ITS REMITTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. (III) LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE S PECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTERS WH EREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF INTEREST AMOUNT WAS ALREADY PAID DURIN G THE RELEVANT YEAR PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABL E. (IV) WHILE TAKING SUCH A VIEW OF THE MATTER, LD. CI T (APPEALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER CIRCULAR NO. 10/DV/2013 DATED 16 -12-2013 ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHEREIN IT IS CLARIFIED IN NO UN CERTAIN TERMS THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION ARE APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO THE AMOUNTS 4 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. PAYABLE AS ON 31ST MARCH OF THE RELEVANT YEAR BUT A LSO TO THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR. (V) LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN THE AFORESAID C IRCULAR IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RATIO OF DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPORT LTD., (216 TAXMAN 258) (CAL) AND SIKANDAR KH AN N TUNVAR (357 ITR 312) (GUJ). (VI) LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN TAKING NOTE OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40 (A)(IA) THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE FOUND IN DEFAULT U/S 201, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) COUL D BE MADE WHEN THE SAID PROVISO WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 01-04-201 3 IN THE STATUTE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. (VII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, SU BSTITUTE, AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. (VIII) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE CANV ASSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT IS BESEECHED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTOR ED. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PAID/PAYABLE ISSUE IS ALREADY SETTLED WITH LATEST DEVELOPMENT ON ACCOUNT OF HONBLE SUPRE ME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF PALAM GAS SERVICES VS. CIT, 517 TAXPUNDIT 101 (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5512 OF 2017, JUDGMENT DATED 03/05/2017). HE FURTHER OBJECTED TO THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASS ESSEE HAS PAID THE INTEREST AND THE INTRODUCTION OF SECOND PROVISO IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, ACCORDINGLY, WHERE THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IN DEFAULT U/S 201, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) COULD BE MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISO WAS INTRODUCED IN FINANCE ACT, 2012, WHICH CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY, FOR THAT PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE CASE OF PRUDENTIAL LOGISTICS AND TRAN SPORTS VS. ITO, [2014] 51 TAXMANN.COM 426 (KERALA). HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THERE IS A NEED TO INTERPRET THE ACT LITERALLY WHEN THE A CT IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. AJAX PRODUCTS LTD., [1965] 55 ITR 741 ( SC) 2. KESHAVJI RAVJI & CO. VS. CIT, [10090 49 TAXMAN 87 5 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. 3. PRUDENTIAL LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORTS VS. ITO, [20 14] 51 TAXMANN.COM 426 (KERALA) 8. ON THE OTHER LAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF PREVIOUS AY 2010-11, IN WHICH THE COORDINATE BENCH, HAS ADJUDICATED IN ASSE SSEES FAVOUR. A COPY OF THE SAID DECISION IS PLACED ON RECORD AND F URTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD., [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 45 (DELHI), WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECOND PROVISO RETROSPECTIVELY. 9. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS CITED. IN THE CA SE OF ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD., (SUPRA), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: IT WAS SEEN THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40( A) (IA) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 201 3. THE EFFECT OF THE SAID PROVISO WAS TO INTRODUCE A LEGAL FICTION WHERE AN A SSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XV II B. WHERE SUCH ASSESSEE WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAUL T IN TERMS OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 201 OF THE AC T, THEN, IN SUCH EVENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME B Y THE RESIDENT PAYEE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISO. THE FIRST PROVISO TO S 210 (1) HAD BEEN INSERTED TO BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO STATED THAT WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SUM PAID TO A RESIDENT OR ON THE SUM CREDITED TO THE AC COUNT OF A RESIDENT SUCH PERSON SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TAX IF SUCH RESIDENT HAD FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF IN COME U/S 139. NO DOUBT, THERE WAS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT U/S 201 TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES, BUT THE INTENTION OF THE LEG ISLATURE WAS NOT TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT SUBJECT TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO S 201(1). THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO S 40(A)(IA) WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE VIEWED IN THE SAME MANNER. THIS AGAIN WAS A PROVISO INTENDED TO BENEFI T THE ASSESSEE. THE EFFECT OF THE LEGAL FICTION CREATED THEREBY WAS TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS A PERSON NOT IN DEFAULT OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UN DER CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES. WHAT WAS COMMON TO BOTH THE PROVISOS TO S 40(A)(IA) AND S 210(1) WAS THAT AS LONG AS THE PAYEE/RESIDENT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY AND IN WHICH THE INCOME EARNED BY IT WAS EMBEDDED AND HAD ALSO PAID TAX ON SUCH INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS NOT 6 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE PAYEE HAD FILED RE TURNS AND OFFERED THE SUM RECEIVED TO TAX. AGRA BENCH OF ITAT IN RAJIV KUMAR AGARWAL V. ACIT HAD UNDERTAKEN A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO S 40(A)( IA) AND ALSO SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE BEHIND ITS INSERTION. THE PRI MARY JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A DISALLOWANCE WAS THAT SUCH A DENIAL OF DEDUCTION WA S TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS OF REVENUE BY CORRESPONDING INCOME NOT BEING T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE R ECIPIENTS OF THE PAYMENTS. SUCH A POLICY MOTIVATED DEDUCTION AND RES TRICTIONS SHOULD THEREFORE, NOT COME INTO PLAY WHEN AN ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL LOSS OF REVENUE. THIS DISALLOWA NCE DOES DEINCENTIVIZE NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE, WHEN SUCH TAX DEDUCTIO NS ARE DUE, BUT, SO FAR AS THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS CONCERNED, THIS PROVISION IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALIZING FOR THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE LAPSES. THE SCHEME OF S 40(A)(IA), WAS AIMED AT ENSURING THAT AN EXPENDITURE SHOULD NO T BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE IN A SITUATIO N IN WHICH INCOME EMBEDDED IN SUCH EXPENDITURE HAD REMAINED UNTAXED D UE TO TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSES BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOT A PE NALTY FOR TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE BUT IT WAS A SORT OF COMPENSATORY DEDUCTION R ESTRICTION FOR AN INCOME GOING UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE. THE PEN ALTY FOR TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE PER SE WAS SEPARATELY PROVIDED FOR IN S 271 C , AND, S 40(A)(IA) DID NOT ADD TO THE SAME. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN 'INTENDE D CONSEQUENCE' TO PUNISH THE ASSESSEES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE BY DECLINING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RELATED PAYMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE CORRESPONDING INCOME WAS DULY BROUGHT TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, HIGH C OURT HELD THAT THE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO S 40(A)(IA) WAS DECL ARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IT HAD RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST APR IL, 2005, BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INS ERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004. THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE REASONING OF THE AGRA BENCH OF ITAT AS REGARDS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT AND ITS CONCLUSION TH AT THE SAID PROVISO WAS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE AND HAD RETROSPECTIVE EFFE CT FROM 1ST APRIL 2005, MERITS ACCEPTANCE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE COURT WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ADOPTING THE R ATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE AGRA BENCH, ITAT IN RAJIV KUMAR AGARWAL V. ACIT . NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPEAL WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9.1. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 1319/ HYD/2011, ORDER DATED 28/11/2014 WHEREIN THE BENCH HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN REVENUE APPEAL AS TH E LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY CERTI FICATES AS PER PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD., (SUPRA) W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE PAYEES HAVE ADMITTED THE RECEI PT OF INCOME, 7 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE PAYEE TO DEDUCT THE TDS. S INCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) ALLOW SUCH ASSESSEE TO BE NOT AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT', CONSEQUENTLY, THE SECOND PRO VISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) ALSO COMES INTO OPERATION EVEN TH OUGH THE SAID PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED FROM 01/04/2013. SINC E IT IS FOR REMOVAL OF HARDSHIP THAT MAY ALSO BE APPLIED FOR PENDING PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE ALSO CATEGORICAL. IN CASE, THERE IS FAILURE ON TH E PART OF ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SUCH CERTIFICATES, DISALLOWANCE STANDS CONF IRMED. SINCE, IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY A.O. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT REVENUE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9.2 LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KE RALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT VS. CIT, ITA NO. 278 OF 2014, IN WHICH THE BENEFIT OF SECOND PROVISO WAS DENIED D UE TO THE FACT THAT IN THAT CASE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO DEDUCT TDS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE TRANSACTION AS LOAN INITIALLY AND ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY DURING ASSESSMENT, HE HAS AGREED THAT HE HAD PAID THE EXPENSES AND ALSO CLAIMED THE EXPENSES IN THE P &L A/C. CONSIDERING THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE HON BLE COURT HAS NOT GRANTED THE BENEFIT. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE SAID CA SE ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABL E TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE INCLINE D TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED DUE PROCEDURE OF SUBMITTI NG THE TAX COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO AS SIMILAR TO THE FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS AY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RA HMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH OCTOBER, 2017. 8 ITA NO. 1701/H/16 ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. KV COPY TO:- 1) DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), 8 TH FLOOR, C BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 2) M/S ADITYA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD. , 8-2- 293/82/F/A/12, PLOT NO. A/12, ROAD NO. 12, JUBI LEE HILLS, HYD. 3) CIT(A) 1, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE