DCIT, (IT), 2(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata

ITA 496/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4278 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MALLIKARJUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: R N BAJORIA; AKH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Bad and doubtful debts; Valuation report
• Section: 43B; 115JB

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGAN ESH, AM] I.T.A NO. 496/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1), KOLKATA (PAN: AACCA 6818K) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) & I.T.A NO. 477/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V. VS. DEPUTY COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1), KOLKATA ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 19.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.10.2016 FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, DR FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI R.N.BAJORIA SR. ADVOCAT E & SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: BOTH THESE CROSS APPEALS BY REVENUE AND ASSESSEE AR E ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) KOLKATA DATED 29.12.2014. AS SESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY JDIT(INTL. TAXATION), RANGE-1, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3)/144C(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2010-11 VIDE HIS O RDER DATED 10.03.2014. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY THIS CON SOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 477/KOL/2015 ASSESSEE APPEAL 2. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHO LDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,57,051/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME IN RELATION TO ADVANCES CLASSIFIED AS NON-PERFORMING ADVANCES (NPAS) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 2.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A BANK INCORPORATED IN NETHERLANDS WITH LIMITED LIABILITY WITH BRANCHES IN INDIA. IN I NDIA, THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED AS A SCHEDULED BANK IN TERMS OF SCHEDULE II OF THE RESER VE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1934. THE MAIN ACTIVITIES FO THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA COMPRISE OF ACC EPTING DEPOSITS, GIVING LOANS, DISCOUNTING /COLLECTION OF BILLS, ISSUE OF LETTERS OF CREDIT/ G UARANTEES, EXECUTING FORWARD TRANSACTION IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES FOR IMPORTERS / EXPORTERS , MONE Y MARKET LENDING / BORROWINGS, INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES, ETC IN TERMS OF THE PREVA ILING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE BAN K HAD NOT RECOGNIZED THE INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES, WHICH WERE OVERDUE FOR MORE THAN 3 MONTHS , IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RBI GUIDELINES APPLI CABLE TO THE BANKS. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT SINCE THE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS NPA AS PER RBI PRUDENTIAL NORMS FOR INCOME RECOGNITION, THE INTERE ST INCOME ON SUCH ADVANCES HAD TO BE RECOGNIZED ONLY ON RECEIPT BASIS. SINCE THERE WAS NO RECEIPT OF INTEREST ON THESE NPA ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR, NO INTEREST INCOME NEED T O BE RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AS PER RBI PRUDENTIAL NORMS FOR INCOME RECOGNITION. THE L D AO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT UNLESS THE ADVANCES WERE OVERDUE FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 6EA OF THE IT RULES, IT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A STICK Y ADVANCE OR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 43D OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY SOUGHT TO AD D BACK THE INTEREST INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLASSIFIED ITS ADVANCES INTO NPA AS PER THE RBI PRUDENTIAL NORMS LAID DOWN IN TH IS REGARD WHICH IS MANDATORY IN NATURE. AS PER THE SAID PRUDENTIAL NORMS, IF AN ACCOUNT IS OVERDUE FOR MORE THAN 3 MONTHS (REDUCED FROM 6 MONTHS TO 3 MONTHS) , THEN THE INTEREST INCO ME THEREON SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED AS INCOME UNLESS IT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD -9 (AS 9) ISSUED BY ICAI , WHERE THERE IS AN UNCERTAIN TY ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF INCOME / REVENUE, RECOGNITION OF SUCH INCOME / REVENUE IS TO BE POSTPONED TO THE EXTENT OF UNCERTAINTY INVOLVED, WHICH IS ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THEO RY OF TAXING ONLY THE REAL INCOME, WHICH IS A SETTLED LAW AS PER VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS . THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 43D OF THE ACT WAS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE INCOME RECOGNITION BY THE BANKS TO BE IN SYNC WITH THE RBI GUIDELINES AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A STATIC NORM. THUS, PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED K EEPING IN MIND THE LEGISLATIVE OBJECT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO PARA (XII) OF CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO. 17 / 2008 DATED 26.11.2008 WHICH DIRECTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE BANK HAS TO 3 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 FOLLOW SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND PREPARE ACCOUNTS AS MANDATED INTER ALIA BY RBI GUIDELINES. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, RULE 6EA OF THE RUL ES, WHICH DEVIATES FROM CURRENT RBI GUIDELINES, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PARENT PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 43D OF THE ACT AND IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE RULES, BEING A SUBORDINATE LEGISLA TION CANNOT OVERRIDE THE EXPRESS MANDATE OF THE PARENT STATUTORY PROVISION. RELIANCE IN THIS R EGARD WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIRPUR PAPER MILLS REPORTED IN 237 ITR 41 (SC) . 2.3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT RULE 6EA IS PRACTICALLY DIFFICULT TO BE IMPLEMENTED, SINCE THE CATEGORIES OF ADVANCES PRESCRIBED THEREIN DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE AS THE CLASSIFICATION OF ADVANCES HAVE CHANGED AND RBI NOW FOLLOWS THE INTERNATIONAL NORM OF CLASSIFICATION (VIZ. STANDARD, SUB-STANDARD, DOU BTFUL AND LOSS ASSETS). THE LD AO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHN OLOGIES LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) . THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME PERTAINED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR NPA IN THE HANDS OF A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY (NBFC) U/S 36(1)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO BANKS. EVEN THE SAID DECISION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE RECOGNIT ION OF INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF NPA ACCOUNTS ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAID ACCOUNTS REMAINED OVERDUE FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS AS ON 31.3.2010 (I.E THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR) AND HENCE IT HAD BECOME NPA EVEN AS PER RULE 6EA OF THE RULES IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND HENCE THE SAID ADJUSTMENT IS ONLY A TIMING DIFFEREN CE AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT RULE 6EA WAS IN CO NFORMITY WITH THE RBI GUIDELINES AT THE TIME OF ITS INTRODUCTION. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE RBI GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN TIGHTENED WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT IN RULE 6EA THE REBY PRESENTLY LEADING TO A DISCONNECT BETWEEN RULE 6EA AND RBI GUIDELINES. TH E ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS VARIOUS CONTE NTIONS IN THIS REGARD:- (A) CIT VS EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 125 O F 2013 DATED 8.10.2013) (SC) (B) AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD VS ACIT REPORTED IN 55 SO T 136 (MUMB ITAT) (C) CIT VS VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD REPORTED IN (2011) 3 30 ITR 440 (DEL) (D) DIT VS BRAHAMPUTRA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD R EPORTED IN(2011) 12 TAXMANN.COM 387 (DEL HC) (E) DCIT VS BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LTD REPORTED IN (2013) 29 TAXMANN.COM 152 (DEL TRIB) 4 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 (F) ACIT VS OSMANABAD JANTA SAH. BANK LTD REPORTED IN ( 2012) 32 TAXMANN.COM 229 (PUNE TRIB) (G) ACIT VS SOLAPUR SIDDESHWAR SAHAKARI BANK IN ITA NOS . 2220 & 2221 /PN/2013 DATED 31.10.2014 OF PUNE TRIBUNAL (H) THE SOLAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD VS ACIT IN ITA NO. 495/PN/2012 DATED 29.9.2014 OF PUNE TRIBUNAL 2.4. THE LD AO HOWEVER NOT CONVINCED WITH THE AFOR ESAID EXPLANATIONS PROCEEDED TO ADD THE INTEREST INCOME ON NPA ACCOUNTS ON ACCRUAL BASI S, WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD DRP. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN PROPOSING AND THE HONBLE DISP UTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.14, 57,051 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME IN RELATION TO ADVANCES WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED AS NON PE RFORMING ADVANCES (NPAS) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) G UIDELINES ISSUED IN THIS REGARD. (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE APPE LLANT PRAYS THAT THE AFORESAID INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTI NG THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE BANK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE AC T) IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) I.E. FY 2010-11. 2.5. THE LD AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD REPORTED IN 330 ITR 440 (DEL) ON THE IMP UGNED ISSUE, AMONG OTHERS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF RULE 6EA STATES NON-RECOGNITION OF INTEREST INCOME ONLY IF THE LOAN ACCOUNT IF OVERDUE FOR MORE THAN 3 MONTHS. HE ARGUED THAT THE RECOGNITION OF INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED BY RBI PR UDENTIAL NORMS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 320 ITR 577 (SC) IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSITION. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THE FACTUM OF UNCERTAINTY IN COLLECTION OF THE SAID ADVANCES AND ARGUED THAT IT IS ALSO CLAIMING PROVISION FOR NPA WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST ELEMENT ALSO AS A DEDUCTION . HENCE ON ONE HAND, IT IS NOT OFFERING THE INTEREST INCOME AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS CL AIMING DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE INTEREST COMPONENT ADDED TO THE PARTYS LOAN ACCOUNT BALANCE . IN DEFENCE, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE FACT OF UNCERTAINTY OF COLLECTION OF THESE DUES FRO M THE PARTIES WERE NEVER IN DISPUTE AND THE SAME IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY BY THE LD DR . HE ALSO STATED THAT ULTIMATELY THESE TWO LOAN ACCOUNTS WERE WRITTEN OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION BY THE LD AO INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL PORTION. HENCE T HERE IS NO QUESTION OF RECOGNIZING ANY INTEREST INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN RESPECT OF SUCH STICKY LOANS. 5 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DETAILED PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE FACTS STATED HEREINABOVE REMAIN UNDISPUTED AND HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REITERATED FO R THE SAKE OF BREVITY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE LOAN ACCOUNTS HAD BECOME STICKY AND DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS TH AT SECTION 43D OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 6EA OF THE RULES PERMITS ACCOUNTING OF INTEREST INC OME ON RECEIPT BASIS ONLY IF THE LOAN ACCOUNT HAD BECOME OVERDUE FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS , WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS MORE THAN THREE MONTHS BUT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS AS ON 31.3.2010. THE LOAN ACCOUNT BECOMING OVERDUE AND BECOMING STICKY WAS NEVER DISP UTED. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PRUDENTIAL NORMS OF RBI FOR INCOME RECOGNITION WOUL D OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD SUPRA IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOWABILI TY OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS PROVISION FOR NPA. WE FIND THAT THE SAME DECISION CLEARLY STATE D THAT THE INTEREST INCOME ON NPA ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL BASIS WHICH IS IN LINE WITH RBI PRUDENTIAL NORMS FOR INCOME RECOGNITION. THIS FINE DISTINCTIO N HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD SUPRA. WHEN THE ACCOUNT BECOMING NPA IS NOT DISPUT ED BY THE REVENUE, THE RECOGNITION OF INCOME IS TO BE DONE ONLY ON RECEIPT BASIS WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE REAL INCOME THEORY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN 330 ITR 440 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIO NS REFERRED TO SUPRA, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME ON NPA ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE ASSES SED ON MERCANTILE BASIS AND THE SAME IS TO BE TAXED ONLY ON RECEIPT BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 3. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD DRP IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,02 ,54,946/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE BAN K HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (FROM 5% BLOCK OF ASSET) WITH OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE ('W DV') OF RS. 1,06,53,958/- FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.9,55,00,000/-, PURSUANT TO WHI CH, THE BLOCK OF ASSET CEASED TO EXIST AS IT WAS THE ONLY ASSET IN THE RESPECTIVE BLOCK. THE BA NK HAD CARRIED OUT SOME RENOVATIONS IN 6 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 THE SAID BUILDING IN THE EARLIER PERIOD(S) AND THE COST OF SUCH RENOVATIONS WERE TAKEN TO THE 10% BLOCK OF BUILDING (I.E. OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS). SUCH TAX TREATMENT WAS BASED ON ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION. TOTAL SALE CONSIDERA TION OF RS. 9,55,00,000/- WAS APPROPRIATED BY THE BANK BETWEEN 5% AND 10% BLOCK OF ASSETS AS R S. 8,51,55,054/- AND RS. 1,03,44,946/- RESPECTIVELY. SINCE, THE 5% BLOCK OF ASSET CEASED T O EXIST, THE RESULTANT GAINS OF RS. 7,45,91,096/- WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS DEEMED STCG. HO WEVER, AS THE 10% BLOCK OF ASSET CONTINUES TO EXIST, THE AFORESAID APPROPRIATED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,03,44,946/- WAS REDUCED FROM THE 10% BLOCK AND RESULTED INTO REDUCE D TAX DEPRECIATION CLAIM THEREON UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK HAD CARRIED OUT SOME RENOVATIONS IN THE SAID BUILDING IN THE EARLIER PERIODS AND THE COST OF SUCH RENOVAT IONS WERE TAKEN TO THE 10% BLOCK OF BUILDING (I.E OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING) WHIC H HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD AO WHILE DONE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. TH E BANK CONTINUED CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON THE 10% BLOCK OF ASSETS U/S 32 OF THE ACT ON THE REDUCED WDV, AFTER ADJUSTING THE AFORESAID APPROPRIATED SALE CONSIDERATION SINCE 10% BLOCK OF ASSET CONTINUES TO EXIST. THE LD AO NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS COMPUTED SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (STCG) BY ADJUSTING THE APPROPRIATED SALE CONSIDERATION AGAI NST THE 5% BLOCK OF ASSET ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSET SOLD BELONGS TO 5% BLOCK OF ASSET AN D NOT 10% BLOCK.. HENCE THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION OF RS 9.55 CRORES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RE DUCED ONLY FROM THE 5% BLOCK OF ASSET AND RESULTANT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN TERMS OF SECTION 50 OF THE ACT HAD TO BE COMPUTED, ACCORDING TO LD AO. THIS ACTION OF THE LD AO WAS A LSO UPHELD BY THE LD DRP. HOWEVER, THE LD DRP AGREED TO THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION OF RS 9.55 CRORES HAD BEEN REDUCED BY THE LD AO IN THE 5% BLOCK ASSETS, THEN CORRESPONDINGLY THE APPROPRIATED SALE CONSIDERATION REDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE 10% BLOCK OF ASSETS NEED TO BE INCREASED AND ACCORDINGL Y DIRECTED THE LD AO TO RECOMPUTED THE WDV OF 10% BLOCK AND GRANT DEPRECIATION THEREON. AG GRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN PROPOSING AND THE HONBLE DRP FURTHER ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,02,54,946/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSET. 7 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 3.2. THE LD AR REITERATED THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS TOGETHER WITH THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BANK IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . HE STATED THAT THE RENOVATIONS CARRIED OUT IN EARLIER YEARS HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE 10% B LOCK OF BUILDINGS ALONG WITH OTHER ITEMS AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ACCORDINGLY WHICH WAS ALSO GRANTED BY THE LD AO IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HENCE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD B E FOLLOWED. ADMITTEDLY, WHAT WAS SOLD WAS THE BUILDING FOR RS. 9.55 CRORES WHICH WAS LYIN G IN 5% BLOCK AS WELL AS IN 10% BLOCK AND HENCE THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON THEREON WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BANK. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR TOO K US TO THE DEFINITION OF BLOCK OF ASSETS AS PER SECTION 2(11) ; PROVISIONS RELATING TO ALLOWAN CE OF DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1) ; MEANING OF WRITTEN DOWN VALUE IN RESPECT OF BLOCK OF ASSETS AS PER SECTION 43(6)(C ) AND PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN CASE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS IN TERMS OF SECTION 50 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO TOOK US TO THE RELEVANT INCOME TAX DEPRECIA TION CHART WHEREIN ONLY CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS IS MENTIONED AT 5% RATE . HE ARGUED THAT THE 10% DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RENOVATIONS IN THE EARLIER YEARS I S WRONG AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR 5% AS WHAT WAS AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FA CTS STATED HEREINABOVE REMAIN UNDISPUTED AND HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REITERATED FO R THE SAKE OF BREVITY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD 5% BLOCK AS WELL AS 10% BLOCK FOR BUILDINGS IN ITS INCOME TAX DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT THE RENOVATIONS WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBJECT MENTIONED BUILDING (WHI CH WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND DISPUTE BEFORE US) WAS ADDED IN THE 10% BLOCK BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ACCORDINGLY. WE FIND THAT THI S DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE REVENUE ALL ALONG. GOING BY THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSI STENCY, THERE IS NO NEED TO DISTURB THE SAID STAND OF THE REVENUE. BUT SINCE THE ENTIRE BUILDIN G ( INCLUDING THE RENOVATED PORTION) WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL FOR RS. 9.55 CROR ES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAD RIGHTLY ALLOCATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS 5% AN 10% BLOCK ON THE BASIS OF THEIR VALUES AND COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/ 50 OF THE ACT FOR THE 5% BLOCK AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION U/S 32 OF THE ACT FOR THE 10% BLOCK. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE 10% BLOCK CONTINUES TO EXIST AS ON 31.3.2010. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, WE FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE GR OUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 4. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABIL ITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSEE BANK. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT IN DETAIL BY SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND OTHER TRIBUNALS WHER EIN IT HAD BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPL ICABLE TO AN ASSESSEE UNLESS IT IS REGISTERED AS A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 19 56 AND PREPARES ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 211 AND PART II AND PART III OF SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. WE PLACE R ELIANCE ON THE RECENT DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF U CO BANK VS DCIT REPORTED IN (2015) 64 TAXMANN.COM 51 (KOLKATA TRIB) DATED 27.11.2015 IN THIS REGARD. IN THE SAID DECISION, IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINA NCE ACT 2012 IN SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM ASST YEAR 2013-14 ONWAR DS AND NOT EARLIER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE HOLD THA T THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BANK FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HENCE THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDI NG INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL IN N ATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 6. THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENE RAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 477/KOL/2015 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 496/KOL/2015 REVENUE APPEAL 8. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD DRP IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUN T OF PROVISION FOR GRATUITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,18,00,000/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 416,76,96,118/- TOWARDS PAYMENT TO AND PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES WHICH INCLUDED RS. 2,18,00,000/- TOWARDS GRATUITY. SUCH SUM OF GRATUITY WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION 9 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT VALUER. THE LD AO PRO POSED DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID PROVISION U/S 43B OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED STATING THAT EXCESS GRATUITY PERTAINING TO AY 2009-10 AMOUNTING TO RS 3.48 CRORE (VIZ. RS.2.23 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT AND RS 1.25 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF NET CREDIT ARISING PURSUANT TO ACTUARIAL VALUATION) WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION/OFFERED TO TAX IN AY 2009-10. OUT OF THE ABOVE EXCESS GRATUITY, BANK CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 2,18,00,000/- IN AY 2010-1 1 UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, BEING THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SUM WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING (I.E. WHEN ACCRUED) HAVING REG ARD TO THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION REPORT. THE LEARNED AO WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE MERELY P ERUSING THE ANNEXURE 9 AND 12 OF THE SUBMISSIONS DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2013 AND 27 SEPTEMBER 2013 FILED WITH HIM BY THE BANK, WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE BANK TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SUCH CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. AS LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE GRATUITY AMOUNT WAS INCURRED BY THE BANK ONLY IN AY 2010-11, THE BANK CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE SAME IN AY 2010-11 THOUGH THE ACTUAL PAYMEN T WAS MADE IN AN EARLIER FY VIZ. AY 2009-10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE BANK A LTERNATIVELY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN AY 2009-10, SINCE , NON-ALLOWANCE OF THE SAME IN AY 2009-10 AS WELL AS IN AY 2010-11 WOULD RESULT IN CL AIM OF EXPENSES GOING UN-ALLOWED WHICH IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 43B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KER ALA SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LTD REPORTED IN (2008) 306 ITR 54 (KER) . THE LD AO HOWEVER PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE SUM OF RS. 2,18,00,000/- U/S 43B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE LD DRP. THE LD. DRP APPRECIATED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. AGGRIEVED , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. WHETHER THE LD. DRP HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FAC TS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE DISALLOWANCE PROPOSED U/S. 43B OF THE I.T. A CT, 61 OF GRATUITY PROVISION AMOUNTING OF RS.2,18,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE GRATUITY HA S BECOME DUE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THOUGH ITS ACTUAL PAYMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR? 8.2. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE LD AO . IN ANY CASE, IT IS ONLY A PRIOR PERIOD ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. I N RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD AR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD DRP AND ARGUED THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT 10 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 ONLY CONTEMPLATES THE PAYMENT OF THE GRATUITY AMOUN T WHICH HAS BEEN DULY DONE IN THE INSTANT CASE IN THE EARLIER YEAR ITSELF. 8.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,18,00,000/- IN THE EARLIER YEAR I.E IN ASST YEAR 2009-10 ITSELF ALONG WITH OTHER AMOUNTS. HOWEVER, DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME HA S NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN THAT YEAR I.E IN ASST YEAR 2009-10 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E THE YEAR IN WHICH IT HAD BECOME DUE. WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUME NT OF THE LD AR THAT THE SPIRIT OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY THE AS SESSEE IN FULL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERA LA HIGH COURT SUPRA IS WELL FOUNDED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE LD DRP AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND TO BE DE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXCESS PROVISION WRITTEN BACK. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BANK FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BECOMES ACADEMIC AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 2 R AISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. THE LAST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE LD DRP IN DIRECTING THE LD AO ON THE ISSUE O F GRANTING TDS CREDIT IS JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO ITS HEAD OFFICE / OTHER BRANCHES LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA. PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CAL CUTTA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 458 OF 2005 DATED 23.12.2010 WHICH WAS A LSO CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3.8.2012, THE BA NK WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT ANY TAX U/S 195 OF THE ACT ON INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO ITS HEAD OFFICE / OTHER BRANCHES. SINCE THE TAX HAD ALREADY BEEN REMITTED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE BANK REQUESTED THE LD AO TO REFUND SUCH TAXES DEDUCTED W HICH WAS DENIED BY THE LD AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS TO BE FOLLOWED UP WITH THE TDS OFFICER AND HENCE THE CLAM CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD 11 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 DRP IN ASST YEAR 2009-10 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAD DIRECTED THE LD AO TO GRANT THE TDS CREDIT IN THE ASSESSMENT AND GRANT REFUND ACCORDING LY. THE LD AO RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2007 TO DENY THE REFUND OF TDS. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE SAID CIRCULAR ENVISAGES A SCENARIO WHERE THE PAYER IS A RESIDENT IN INDIA AND WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INDIAN BRANCH OF THE BANK BEING A PAYER, IS A NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BANK WOULD NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE A FORESAID CIRCULAR. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE LD DRP. THE LD DRP OBSERVED THAT THE CIRCULAR RELIED UPON BY THE LD AO RELATES TO A SITUATION WHERE TAX WAS N OT DEDUCTIBLE DUE TO REASONS SUCH AS CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTS, DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF TAX OR DEDUCTION AT HIGHER RATE ETC. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY IT ON THE INTE REST PAYMENT TO ITS HEAD OFFICE AND OVERSEAS BRANCHES. ACCORDINGLY IT HELD THAT THE CI RCULAR NO. 7 OF 2007 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK AND ALSO OBSERVED T HAT THE SAID TDS IS DULY APPEARING IN FORM NO. 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DIRECTED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE LD AO WITH REFERENCE TO TDS CERTIFICATE AND ALLOW CREDIT ACCOR DINGLY. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 3. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD.DRP HAD JURISDICTION TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF GIVING TDS CREDIT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CREDIT OF TDS IN NO WAY INCREASES OR DECREASES THE RETURNED INCOME OR LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, AS PER SECTION 144((2) OF THE I.T.AC T'61, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO FILE OBJECTION ON THIS GROUND. 4. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.DRP ERRED IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT CIRCULAR NUMBER 7 OF 2007 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 5. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.DRP ERRED IN LAW BY DIRECTING THE A.O TO GIVE TDS CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,19,31 ,487/- DEDUCTED FROM PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO ITS HEADQUARTERS & OTHER BRANCHES EVEN THOUGH TH E CORRESPONDING INCOME WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN AS REQUIRE D U/S.199 OF THE I.T.ACT'61. 6. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED REFUND FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL TDS OFFICER AND THEREFORE T HE LD.DRP ERRED IN LAW BY DIRECTING THE A.O TO GIVE CREDIT TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.10,19,31, 487/- DEDUCTED FROM PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO ITS H.Q.& OTHER BRANCHES. 10.2. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD AO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE MONIES HAVE BEEN LYING WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , WHETHER IT IS TDS OFFICER OR ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ARGUED THAT T HE SAID ISSUE WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE LD DRP IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE A ND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THAT ORDER BY THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF PREVAILING STA TUTORY PROVISIONS. 12 ITA NO. 496-477/KOL/2015 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND NV, AY 2010-11 10.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FA CTS STATED HEREINABOVE REMAIN UNDISPUTED AND HENCE THE SAME ARE NOT REITERATED FO R THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE SAID TDS HAS BEEN REMITTED TO THE ACCO UNT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON WHICH THE REFUND OF THE SAME IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT TH E REVENUE IS UNJUSTLY ENRICHED BY THE TDS AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE SAID TDS IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE FORM 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CRE DIT OF THE SAID TDS IN HIS ASSESSMENT WHICH THE REVENUE HAS GOT NO AUTHORITY TO DENY AS PER LAW . ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD DRP TO THE LD AO TO GRANT CREDIT OF TDS IS IN ORDER AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS 3 TO 6 RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. THE GROUND NO. 7 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT A NO. 496/KOL/2015 IS DISMISSED. 13. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 477/KOL/2015 IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 496/KOL/2015 IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.10.2016 SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED : 14 TH OCTOBER, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1), KOL KATA. 2 RESPONDENT THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., AZIMGU NJ HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, 7, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-700 017. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .