ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -1 (1), Pune

ITA 309/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9200 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Revised return; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 32; 263; 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 115JB; 32(1)(iia)

Judgement Text

ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE (Through virtual court) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ZF Steering Gear (I) Ltd., Gat No. 1242/44 Village Vaduz Badruk Taluka Shirur, Dist. Pune – 412 216 PAN AAACZ0549G Appellant Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 1(1) Pune Respondent Appellant by: Shri Nikhil Pathak Respondent by: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 25-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08-02-2022 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)–11,Pune dated 11-01-2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A)-11 Pune, has erred in law in upholding disallowance of expenses made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („the”) applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules 1962 (“the rules‟). The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the provisions of sub-section (2) of sec. 14A of the Act could be invoked only if the ld. O having regard to the accounts of the assessee, was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The ld. AO has not brought on record dissatisfaction about the reasonableness of indirect expenses disallowed by the appellant in the return of income u/s 14A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reducing the amount of strategic investments from the average value of investments while calculating disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules (Amount of disallowances of expenses Rs. 16,92,897/-). 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming disallowance of the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,20,21,505/- to the extent of 50% in respect of ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 2 plant and machineries acquired and installed in immediately preceding financial year 2011-12 for less than 180 days. The appellant craves leave to add to and/or amend and/or to modify and/or to cancel any one or more grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and power staring gears and spares thereof for commercial vehicles, passenger buses, multi-activity vehicles, etc. The assessee filed its original return of income on 29-11-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 31,26,44,660/- which was revised on 11-9-2014 declaring total income of Rs. 30,06,23,154/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed second revised return on 9-12- 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 29,71,88,270/-. The AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28-3-2016 determining the total income at Rs. 31,30,34,893/-. While computing the total income, the A.O has considered total income as per first revised return instead of second revised return. The rectification application dt. 5-4-2016 before the A.O is stated to be still pending. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O made the following disallowances/additions. Sr.No. Nature of disallowance/addition Amount (Rs.) 1. Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules 1962 (“the rules) 25,26,340/- 2. Disallowance of claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,20,21,505/- in respect of plant and machineries of Rs. 12,02,15,050/- acquired and installed for less than 180 days in the preceding financial year (FY) 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. 1,20,21,505/- Total 1,45,47,845/- 3. Aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. In this case the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal. The additional ground of appeal No. 1 is taken along with grounds No. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo filed by the assessee for adjudication. ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 3 5. The issue is with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules. The A.O has dealt with this issue at page 2 para 3.1 of his order and has given his findings on page 10 in para 3.2. 6. The A.O was of the opinion that there is always an element of indirect expenditure for earning such exempt income which the assessee has not completely identified and offered to tax. Monitoring any investments required some indirect expenditure such as communication expenses, stationary expenses, office expenses, salary etc. The assessee in its reply has stated that the investments made by the joint venture company was in furtherance of its business and considering the nature of exempt income, the assessee was not required to incur any direct expenditure for earning such exempt income. Further, the assessee submitted that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and the tax free investments and hence in view of a decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340, it can be held that the tax from investments were made out of own funds of the assessee. The A.O further held that the Act does not emphasise and link the disallowances u/s 14A to the intention to earn exempt income. Hence, even if the assessee has made any strategic investment, it can get exempt dividend from that strategic investment in JV company in future, whether the assessee is intended to get it or not. Therefore, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is made with respect to expenditure incurred on earning of exempt income irrespective of the intention of the assessee. The assessee had on its own made a disallowance of Rs. 9,39,317/- in relation to exempt income to which the A.O was not satisfied with the correctness of the same. Thereafter, the A.O calculated and added Rs. 25,26,340/- as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue at para 5 page 3 onwards in his order. The ld. CIT(A) at para 10 page 15 of his order has finally upheld the order of the A.O as per the reasons contained therein. In principle, he has confirmed the disallowance worked out by the learned A.O u/s 14A, r.w.r. 8D on account of indirect expenditure. However, in para 10.2 of his order, the learned CIT(A) has stated that out of the said suo-moto ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 4 disallowance u/s 14A offered by the assessee of Rs. 9,39,317/-, an amount of Rs. 97,532/- is pertaining to security transaction tax paid Rs. 8,342/- pertains to Demat charges, thus, totalling to Rs. 1,05,874/-, which according to him, is the direct expenditure attributable for earning exempt income. As regards, balance amount of Rs. 8,33,433/- (i.e. 9,39,317/- - 1,05,874/-), he has stated it is on account of indirect expenditure and the same is to be excluded from the component of disallowance worked out on account of indirect expenditure under Rule 8D. Thus, the net disallowance on account of indirect expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) after considering the suo-moto disallowance works out to Rs. 16,92,897/-. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance made u/s 14A is not justified. It was submitted that while computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), the investments which did not yield any exempt income during the year under consideration should be excluded. For this proposition, the assessee has raised additional ground No. 1. In this context, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt.. Ltd. (165 ITD 27 (Del) (SB) wherein it has been held that only those investments should be considered for computing average value of investments under rule 8D which yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench, the assessee submitted that direction may be given to exclude investments which did not yield any exempt income in the year under consideration while computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). 8. The ld. D.R fairly concedes to the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are of the considered view, on hearing the submissions of the parties herein that as per the view taken by the Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal (supra), the A.O would exclude investments which do not yield any exempt income for the year under consideration while computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remand the matter back to file of the A.O as indicated hereinabove. The A.O shall ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 5 comply with principles of natural justice while re-adjudicating the issue. Grounds No. 1 and 2 and additional ground No. 1 are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. That regarding ground No. 3 in the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo, the issue is with regard to confirmation of disallowance of the claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,20,21,505/- u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The A.O has discussed this issue at para 4.1 onwards of his order and has given his findings at para 4.2 onwards at page 20. The learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue at para 11.1 and has given his findings at page 17 para 11.5, wherein he has given his reasons which are on record while upholding the disallowances made by the A.O. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue of additional depreciation is decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT 14 Vs. Godrej Industries Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 511 of 2016 dated 24-11- 2018. The question framed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in this case was as follows: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to 50% of the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act 1961?” 10. The brief facts before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court were as follows: (i) The assessee firm filed E return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 7/11/2007. The assessee declared total income at Rs. NIL as per the normal provisions of the I.T. Act 1961 (for short “the Act”) and Rs. 21,86,10,387/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) of the Act, was passed by the AO vide order dated 21-12-2009 computing total loss of Rs. 29,83,16,673.- under the normal provision and total income u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, Commissioner (Appeals) passed order u/s 263 of the Act on 17-01-2012 on the issue of additional depreciation claimed, carry forward unabsorbed deprecation and provision of doubtful advances not added back while computing the Book Profit u/s 115JB and thus set aside the original assessment order. (ii) Subsequently, the AO issued notice to the assessee u/s 142(1) on 6-2- 2012 pursuant to the order u/s 263 of the Act. The A.O vide order dated 4-12-2012 restricted the claim for additional depreciation to Rs. 3,21,29,304/- as against Rs. 5,04,88,906/- thereby disallowing the claim for depreciation of Rs. 1,83,59,602/- which pertains to additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act at 20% in respect of eligible assets put to use for less than 180 days, as against the rate of 10% (i.e. restricted to 50% of the additional depreciation. (iii) Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 4-12-2012, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 6 (iv) CIT(A) vide order dated 5-8-2013 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) by relying on the decision for 2009-10 directed to allow 50% of the additional depreciation in the year under consideration and to allow the balance 50 % in the subsequent year. (v) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. (vi) The Tribunal by an order dated 1 st June, 2015 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 11. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at para 5 held as under: “5. Having heard counsel for the Revenue and for the assessee, we notice that the Assessee’s claim of additional depreciation arises out of clause (iia) of sub-section 1 of sec. 32 of the Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of sec. 32 of the Act recognises the depreciation on block of assets. Clause (iia) grants additional depreciation in case of acquisition and installation of new machinery or plant by an assessee after 31-3-2005, the assessee being engaged in business of manufacture or product ion of an article or things. 6. We may also notice that the second proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of sec. 32 of the Act, would restrict Assessee’s claim of depreciation to 50% in case, the assets are required by the assessee during the previous year and put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period less than 180 days in the said previous year. 7. In the context of such statutory provisions, the Revenue has raised the question – whether when 50% of the additional depreciation is claimed by the assessee in a particular assessment year, since the acquisition and putting in to use of the assets in the previous year was for less than 180 days, the assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. Such a question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anor Vs. Ritta1 India Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 380 ITR 423. The court, after referring to the statutory provisions, held and observed in para 8 as under: - "8: The aforesaid two conditions, i.e., the undertaking acquiring new plant and machinery should be a new industrial undertaking, or that it should be claimed in one year, have been done away by substituting clause (iia) with effect from April 1, 2006. The grant of additional depreciation, under the aforesaid provision, is for the benefit of the assessee and with the purpose of encouraging industrialization, by either setting up a new industrial unit or by expanding the existing unit by purchase of new plant and machinery, and putting it to use for the purposes of business. The proviso to clause (ii) of the said section makes it clear that only 50 per cent of the 20 per cent would be allowable, if the new plant and machinery so acquired is out to use for less than 180 days in a financial year. However, it nowhere restricts that the balance 10 per cent would not be allowed to be claimed by the assessee in the next assessment year.” The language used in clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that "a further sum equal to 20 per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii)". The word "shall" used in the said clause is very significant. The benefit which is to be granted is 20 per cent additional depreciation. By virtue of the proviso referred to above, only 10 per cent can be claimed in one year, if plant and machinery is put to use for less than 180 days in the said financial year. This would necessarily mean that the balance 10 per cent additional deduction can be availed of in the subsequent assessment year, otherwise the very purpose of insertion of' clause (iia) would be defeated because it provides for 20 per cent deduction which shall be allowed.” ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 7 It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the apex court, that the beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal, in our view, has rightly held, that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization, and the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find that any interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal, or that any question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this court." After the said judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), legislation has also amended the statutory provisions by adding the third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act, which reads as under:- " Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause(iia) for that previous year, then the deduction for the balance fifty per cent the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause(iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the Immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset.” 8. The third proviso, thus, now recognizes the right of an Assessee to claim the remaining 50% depreciation in subsequent year in a case where machinery and plant being acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year, the depreciation was restricted to 50%. Such a situation as in the present case, was considered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 394 ITR 483, the court referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as the addition of third proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act and observed as under:- “10.1 : The plain language of sec. 32(1)(iia) read along with relevant proviso would have us to come to the conclusion that, there is no limitation in the assessee claiming the balance 10 per cent of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year, 10.2 As a matter of fact, w.e.f. April, 2016, the ambiguity, if any, in this regard, in the mind of A.O stands removed by virtue of the legislature, incorporating in the Statute, the necessary clarificatory amendment. 10.3.... .... .... 11. We may only indicate that during the course of the arguments, our attention was drawn to the “Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2015” whereby, the aforementioned amendment was brought about. 11.1 The relevant part of the memorandum is extracted hereafter. “.......To remove the discrimination in the matter of allowing additional ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 8 depreciation on plant or machinery used for less than 180 days and used for 180 days or more, it is proposed to provide that the balance 50 per cent of the additional depreciation on ne2w plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant or machinery, shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. The amendment will take effect from 1 st April 2016 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent assessment year”. 11.2 A perusal of the extract of the memorandum relied upon would show that the legislature recognised the fact that the manner in which the Revenue chose to interpret the provision, as it stood prior to its amendment would lead to discrimination, in respect of plant and machinery, which was used for less than 180 days, as against that, which was used for 180 days or more. 11.3 In our opinion as indicated above, the amendment is clarificatory in nature and not prospective, as is sought to be contended by the Revenue. The memorandum cannot be read in the manner, in which, the Revenue has sought to read it, which is that the amendment brought in would apply only prospectively. 11.4 We are clearly, of the view that the memorandum, which is sought to be relied upon by the Revenue, only clarifies as to how the un-amended provision had to be read all along. 11.5 In any event, in so far as the court is concerned, it has to go by the plain language of the un-amended provision, and then, come to a conclusion in the matter. As allude to above, our view, is that, upon a plain reading of the un-amended provision, it could not be said that the assessee could not claim balance depreciation in the assessment year, which follows the assessment year, in which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit for less than 180 days.” 9. It could be thus, to seen that the Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) even without the aid of the statutory amendment held that remaining 50% unclaimed depreciation would be available to the assessee in the succeeding assessment year. Now the legislation has amended the provision by adding a proviso being clarificatory in nature, would apply to pending cases, covering past period also. 10. We have no reason to take a view different from two High Courts, examining the situation at considerable lengths. In the result, no question of law arises.” 12. This decision was followed by Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Damodar Jagannath Malpani Vs. DCIT (ITA N in ITA No. 2182/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2182/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15. The relevant portion of the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal (supra) is as follows: “18. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed that after the decision in the case of Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra.) by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, there has been legislative amendment wherein the third proviso to clause (ii) of sub section 1 of Section 32 of the Act had been added which is as follows: “Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 9 a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset.” Therefore, the third proviso, thus now recognizes the right of an assessee to claim the remaining 50% depreciation in subsequent year. But the fact remains even without the aid of statutory amendment, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. case (supra.) had held that “the assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent assessment years.” Now with the introduction to the proviso to Section 32 of the Act, it was held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri T.P Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 294 ITR 483 that such proviso being clarificatory in nature and hence, would apply to pending cases, covering past period also. The matter before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court pertained to assessment year 2007-08 and accordingly, it was covered by the aforesaid judicial findings. 19. That while considering the view taken by these two Hon’ble High Courts in the above referred judgments, it was held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that there is no justification in taking any different view and hence, no question of law arose. 20. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was also referred by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No.685/PUN/2017 dated 22.11.2019 wherein the Tribunal on the issue has held as follows: “.................In this judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, there is reference made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd., 380 ITR 423 and the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri T.P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 394 ITR 483 and in both these cases, it has been unanimously observed and held that the assessee can claim balance depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court was of the opinion that there emerges no reason to take a different view from that taken by the aforesaid two High Courts, examining the situation at considerable length. Therefore, appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court. Respectfully, following the binding judgment of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court, we allow ground No.8 raised by the assessee.” Therefore, the view that emerges from the aforesaid judicial precedent is that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. case had given the right to the assessee to claim the remaining unclaimed 50% depreciation in the subsequent assessment year and at that time the proviso to section 32 was also not there but right now with the insertion of such proviso, this right has been statutorily recognized. That as regards, whether such proviso would apply to past periods or not, the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra.) which is still operational and it has been held that the said proviso was only clarificatory in nature and would thus apply to pending cases covering past periods also. Thus, Grounds No.6 and 7 raised in appeal by the assesse are allowed. “ ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 10 13. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 14. We shall now take up the second additional ground raised by the assessee which reads as follows: “2. The assessee submits that the education cess and secondary and higher education cess paid for the year under consideration may kindly be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee.” 15. It was submitted by the assessee that the fact that the assessee has paid Education cess and secondary and higher Education Cess is available from the return of income filed by it. Accordingly, considering the fact that the issue involved is a legal issue and the relevant facts relating to the same are on record, the assessee prayed for admission of the additional ground. 16. Having heard the parties, we find that this issue is a legal one and hence we admit the same for adjudication. The assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) for admission of this legal ground. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (423 ITR 426) has held that the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education cess are allowable as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee. Respectfully following the said judicial pronouncement, we direct the A.O to allow the deduction on account of education cess and secondary and higher education cess paid for the year under consideration by the assessee. We therefore, allow this ground of the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08 th day of February, 2022. Sd\- sd/- ( R.S.SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :08 th February. 2022 Ankam ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 11 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Add. CIT Central Range -1, Pune. 4. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, ///TRUE COPY/// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. ITA No. 309/PUN/2019 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 12 Date 1 Draft dictated on 31-01-2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 02-02-2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order 08-02-2022 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 08-02-2022 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order