ACIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI V. EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOURS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 689/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6481 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 40(a)(ia); 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENC H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 FOR (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ACIT- 2(1)(2), R.NO. 561, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOURS LTD., M/S ESTRELLA BATTERIES LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, CECIL COURT, LANDSDOWN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400009. PAN: AABCE5758R APPELLANT RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTION NO.55/MUM/2019 FOR (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOURS LTD.,M/S ESTRELLA BATTERIES LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, CECIL COURT, LANDSDOWN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400009. PAN: AABCE5758R . VS. ACIT- 2(1)(2), R.NO. 561, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.R. VORA, CHETAN NOVAL (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 14.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 14.02.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI (FOR SHORT THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 14.11.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 28.02.2014. ON SERVI CE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION (C.O.). THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IMPUGNED IN THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED BELOW: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1.10.91.4651- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I. T. ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND T O DEDUCT TDS ON THE PAYMENTS MADE AND DULY CLAIMED, WHICH IS NOT DONE B Y ASSESSEE BUT BY A THIRD PARTY NAMELY COX AND KINGS (INDIA) LTD. ' 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AD BE RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C.O. HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL: DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 1,10,91,465 UNDER S ECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (,ACT') ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (' AO') (I.E. THE APPELLANT) HAS: 1. ERRED IN CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ['CIT(A)'] ON ACCOUNT OF NON-WITHHOLDING OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT TO PAYMENT MADE TO M/S COX & KINGS (INDIA) LTD ('CKL') ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT; 2. ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT TO CKL IS AN ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON COST TO COST BASIS, WITHOUT ANY INCOME ELEMENT; 3. ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT CKL, AS PAYER, HAS ALREADY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO THE PAYEES, T HUS, THERE IS NO BREACH OF TAX WITHHOLDING PROVISIONS UNDER THE ACT; DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 17,85,282 ON DELAYE D PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT') ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS: 4. ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID ON DELAYE D PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT INTEREST PAID IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND NOT PENAL IN NATURE AND THUS, THE SAME IS AN ALLOWA BLE DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT; 3. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED B Y REVENUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1175/MUM/2017 AND IN ITA NO. 615 1/MUM/2012 RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNI SHED THE COPY OF DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2012-13 D ATED 30.07.2018 AND 11.09.2017 RESPECTIVELY. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2012-13 AGREED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE IS C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AN D HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1175/MUM/2017 DATED 11.09.2017. WE HAVE NOTICED THA T ON SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE DISALLOWAN CE WAS DELETED. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER: ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 4 2. I HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF RS.38.59 LAKHS TOWARDS RENT A ND REPAIRS AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION. THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MAD E TO M/S COX & KINGS INDIA LTD (CKIL) AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BELONGS T O THE SAME GROUP. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE ABOV E SAID PAYMENTS AND HENCE THE AO ENQUIRED ABOUT THE DETAILS OF TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE THERE FROM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY M /S CKIL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY DULY DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AND THE AS SESSEE HAS MERELY REIMBURSED THE AMOUNTS TO M/S CKIL. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AGAIN AND AC CORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID EXPLANATIONS AND ACCORDINGL Y DISALLOWED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.38.59 LAKHS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A), HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE TAX IS N OT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON REIMBURSEMENTS. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED TH IS APPEAL. 3. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT D EDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S CKIL AND HENCE THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRA RY, THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CIT VS. OBC ENGINEERS (INCOME TAX LODGING NO.20 26 OF 2012 DATED 07- 03- 2013) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMEN T TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE EXPENDITURE REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. I NOTICE THAT M/S CKIL HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDIT URE BY WAY OF RENT AND REPAIRS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) HA S RECORDED A FINDING THAT M/S CKIL HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH TDS PROVISIONS AT THE T IME OF MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE CONCERNED PAYEES. THUS, IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE PAYMENT BY WAY OF RENT AND REPAIRS HAVE BEEN DULY SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REIMBURSED THE AMOUNT TO M/S CKIL ON WHICH TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. SINCE THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE M/S CKIL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURC E THERE FROM BY M/S CKIL, IN MY VIEW, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED THAT M/S CKIL HAS D EDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ALSO ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 5 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATT ER, THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE HAS BEEN FULFILLED BY M/S CKIL AND HENCE I AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD CIT(A) THAT THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) WOULD NOT GET ATTRACTED IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX. ACC ORDINGLY I UPHOLD THE DECISION TAKEN BY LD CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE SAID REASONING. 6. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS DE LETED BY TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 6151/ MUM/2012 DATED 30.07.2018 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 IN ITA NO 1175/M UM/2017 ORDER DATED 11.09.2017, WHEREIN TRIBUNAL ON EXACTLY SIMILAR FAC TS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4 AS UNDER: - 4. I NOTICE THAT M/S CKIL HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDI TURE BY WAY OF RENT AND REPAIRS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) HA S RECORDED A FINDING THAT M/S CKIL HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH TDS PROVISIONS AT T HE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE CONCERNED PAYEES. THUS, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE PAYMENT BY WAY OF RENT AND REPAIRS HAVE BEEN DULY SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REIMBURSED THE AMOUNT TO M /S CKIL ON WHICH TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. SINCE THE IMPU GNED PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE M/S CKIL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH E TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE THERE FROM BY M/S CKIL, IN MY VI EW, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED THAT M/S CKIL HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE OBLIGATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE HAS BEEN FULFILLED BY M/S CKIL AND HE NCE I AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD CIT(A) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A )(IA) WOULD NOT GET ATTRACTED IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX. ACCORDINGLY, I UP HOLD THE DECISION TAKEN BY LD CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE SAID REASONING. ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 6 3. AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSES SEE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APP EAL. 7. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WE FIND THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS SQUARELY COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTION NO.55/MUM/2019 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND IN C.O. FOR DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX. 10. BRIEF FACTS RELATES TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN CROSS OB JECTION ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX OF RS. 17.85 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THE EXPENSES OF T HE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO P&L A/C UNDER THE HEAD GENERAL EXPENSES. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF GENERAL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY VIDE REPLY D ATED 03.02.2014. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFF ICER HOLDING THAT THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX IS PANEL IN NATURE A ND IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND OF APPEAL WHILE FILING C.O. IN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE . ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 7 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND HA VE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTERES T ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX OF RS. 17,85,282/- WHICH RELATES TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. THE INTEREST EXPENSES W ERE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD GENERAL EXPENSES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SECTION 37(1) AND SUBMIT S THAT ONLY EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS OFFEN CE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW WOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NO DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANC E SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF FINE OR PENALTIES INCURRED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SERVICE TAX LAW WHICH IS CODIFIED UNDER FINANCE ACT, 1994, THE INTEREST IS L EVIED UNDER SECTION 75 OF FINANCE ACT IN RESPECT OF DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF TAX. SUCH PAYMENT OF INTEREST CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE AMBIT OF FINES AND PENALT IES SPECIFIED IN EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SERVICE TAX IS DIFFERENT FROM PENALTIES. THE INTEREST ON DE LAYED PAYMENT IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND NO PANEL IN NATURE. IN S UPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KAYPEE MECHANICAL IND IA (P.) LTD. [271 ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 8 CTR 591 (GUJ. HC)] ON THE RATIO THAT PAYMENT OF INT EREST ON SERVICE TAX TO BE CHARGED AS PAYMENT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF BUS INESS AND WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE SAM E IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE, WOULD NOT TAKE PARTAKE ON CHARACTER OF PENA LTY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI TRI BUNAL IN DCIT VS. MESSEE DUSSELDORF INDIA PVT. LTD. [2010] 9129 TTJ 8 1) (DEL. ITAT). THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE DELAYED PAYMENT. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUT HORITIES. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID THE INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 . WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN BIFURCATION OF INTEREST PAID FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KAYPEE MECHANICAL INDIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA ) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST ON SERVICE TAX IS TO BE RECORDED AS PAYMENT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE SAME IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND WOULD NO T PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF PENALTY. 14. CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST ON DELAYED SERVICE TAX IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, WE R ESTORE THE GROUND OF ITA NO. 689/MUM/2018 & C.O. 55/MUM/2019 M/S EZEEGO ONE TRAVEL & TOU RS LTD. 9 APPEAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY T HE FACT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX AND P ASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT BEFORE PA SSING THE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT THE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED A ND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/02/2019. SD/ SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 14.02.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI