M/s. Axis Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

MA 2/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Axis Bank Ltd. filing miscellaneous applications against the orders of the ITAT which incorrectly stated the outcomes of the revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The bank argued that the ITAT had previously set a precedent in 2010-11 where similar issues were resolved in favor of the bank, and thus, the same should apply to the subsequent years. The ITAT acknowledged the errors in their previous orders and corrected the outcomes to dismiss the revenue's appeals, aligning with the decisions made in the earlier assessment year.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135680 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-01-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 311/AHD/2016, ITA No. 2173/AHD/2016, ITA No. 287/Ahd/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 64; 113; 48

Judgement Text

आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीयअपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. MA No. 2/Ahd/2022 In आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 287/AHD/2017 िनधा रण िनधा रणिनधा रण िनधा रण वष वष वष वष /Asstt. Year: 2012-13 2. MA No. 3/Ahd/2022 In आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 604/AHD/2018 िनधा रण िनधा रणिनधा रण िनधा रण वष वष वष वष /Asstt. Year: 2013-14 3. MA No. 4/Ahd/2022 In आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 605/AHD/2018 िनधा रण िनधा रणिनधा रण िनधा रण वष वष वष वष /Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Axis Bank Limited, “Trishul”, 3 rd Floor, Opp. Samtheswar Mahadev,, Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. PAN: AAACU2414K Vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 2 PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee by way of these miscellaneous applications has pointed out certain mistakes apparent on record in the order of the ITAT dated 28/10/2021 and therefore requesting for the remedial action within the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. MA No. 2/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 287/AHD/2017 for AY 2012-13. 2. The assessee in the miscellaneous application has pleaded as under: In para 69 of the order, while deciding the appeal, ITAT referred para 8 to 10 (page 6 to 9) of order i.e. adjudication given for A.Y. 2010-11). However, in A.Y. 2010-11, ITAT has set aside issue of administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and in A.Y. 2010-11, department has not challenged interest disallowance under rule 8D(ii) (Refer page 2 to 64 of CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2010-11). Hence, issue of interest disallowance attained finality in favour of applicant assesse (i.e Axis Bank Ltd.) Accordingly, the issue in present M.A for A.Y. 2012-13 pertains to interest disallowance and accordingly, the finding of Hon’ble ITAT ought to be as “appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” instead of “appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes” In para 71 (Page 54) of ITAT order, while deciding appeal, ITAT referred finding given in A.Y. 2011-12 (ITA No.2171/Ahd/2016) (para 55 to 55.2) (page 48 & 49) wherein appeal preferred by revenue has been dismissed. However, in concluding line of para 71 for A.Y. 2012-13, it was inadvertently mentioned as “appeal filed by the revenue is allowed instead of correct finding “appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.” 2.1 The ld. AR in view of the above has submitted that the ITAT in its order in para 69 (last line) has wrongly concluded “appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes instead of “appeal of the revenue is dismissed” M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 3 3. Secondly, in para 71 (page 54) of the order, while deciding the appeal the ITAT has inadvertently mentioned as “appeal filed by the revenue is allowed instead of correct finding “appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed” 3.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not controvert the argument advanced by the ld. AR. 4. In view of the above, the errors crept in the para 69 and 71 of the order dated stands rectified and may be read as follows: 69. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 311/AHD/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 311/AHD/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of this order in partly favour the assessee for statistical purposes. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 71. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2173/AHD/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2173/AHD/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 55 to 55.2 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 77.1 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 4 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. MA No. 3/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 604/AHD/2018 for AY 2013-14. 6. The assessee in the miscellaneous application has pleaded as under: In para 90 & 91 of ITAT order, while deciding appeal, ITAT referred para 8 to 10 (Page 6 to 9) of order (i.e. adjudication given for A.Y. 2010-11). However, in A.Y. 2010-11, ITAT has set aside issue of administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and in A.Y. 2010-11, department has not challenged interest disallowance under rule 8D(ii) (refer page 2 to 64 of CIT(A) Order for A.Y. 2010-11). Hence, issue of interest disallowance attained finality in favour of applicant assessee (i.e Axis Bank Ltd.) Accordingly, the issue in present M.A. for A.Y. 2013-14 pertains to interest disallowance and accordingly, the finding of Hon’ble ITAT ought to be as “appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” instead of appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.” The ITAT in para 90 at page 60 of the ITAT order has inadvertently mentioned Rs. 1,29,54,449/- instead of Rs. 1,21,69,52,911/- 7. The assessee in the miscellaneous application submitted that the ITAT in its order at para 91 (last line) has wrongly concluded “appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes” instead of “appeal of the revenue is dismissed”. Also the amount at para 90 has wrongly been mentioned as Rs. 1,29,54,449 which should be corrected as Rs. 121,69,52,911/- 7.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not controvert the argument advanced by the ld. AR. 8. In view of the above, the error crept in the para 90 and 91 of the order dated 28-10-2021 stands rectified and may be read as follows. M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 5 90. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 121,69,52,911/- made under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income tax Rule. 91. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 311/AHD/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 311/AHD/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2010-11 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of this order partly allowed for statistical purposes. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 95.1 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. MA No. 4/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 605/AHD/2018 for AY 2014-15. 10. The assessee in the miscellaneous application has pleaded as under: In para 108 & 109 of ITAT order, while deciding appeal, ITAT referred para 8 to 10 (Page 6 to 9) of order (i.e., adjudication given for A.Y. 2010-11). However, in A.Y. 2010-11, ITAT has set aside issue of administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and in A.Y. 2010-11, department has not challenged interest disallowance under rule 8D(ii) (refer page 2 to 64 of CITA) Order for A.Y. 2010-11). Hence, issue of interest disallowance attained finality in favour of applicant assessee (i.e. Axis bank Ltd.) Accordingly, the issue in present M.A. for A.Y. 2014-15 pertains to interest disallowance and accordingly, the finding of Hon’ble ITAT ought to be as “appeal of the revenue is dismissed” instead of “appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes” The ITAT in para 108 at page 66 of the ITAT order has inadvertently mentioned Rs. 2,09,81,890/-/- instead of Rs.182,75,39,552/- In para 111 (page 67) of ITAT order, while deciding appeal, ITAT referred finding given in A.Y. 2011-12 (ITA No. 2173/Ahd/2016) (Para 55 to 55.2) (Page 48 M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 6 & 49) wherein appeal preferred by revenue has been dismissed. However, in concluding line of para 111 of A.Y. 2014-15, it was inadvertently mentioned as “appeal filed by the revenue is allowed instead of correct finding” appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 10.1 In para 113 and 113.1 (page 67 and 68) of ITAT order, while deciding appeal, ITAT referred finding given in A.Y. 2012-13 (ITA No. 287/Ahd/2017) (Para 77 to 77.1) (Page 55) wherein appeal preferred by revenue has been dismissed. However, in concluding line of para 113 and 113.1 of A.Y. 2014-15, it was inadvertently mentioned as “appeal filed by the revenue is allowed instead of correct finding” appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 11. The ld. AR in view of the above miscellaneous application submitted that the ITAT in its order in para 109 (last line) has wrongly concluded “appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes” instead of “appeal of the revenue is dismissed”. Also the amount at para 108 has wrongly been mentioned as Rs. 2,09,81,890 which should be corrected as Rs. 182,75,39,552/- 12. Further, in para 111 (page 67) of the order, while deciding the appeal the ITAT has inadvertently mentioned as “appeal filed by the revenue is allowed instead of correct finding “appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed” 13. Likewise, in para 113 and 113.1 (page 67 and 68) of the order, while deciding the appeal the ITAT has inadvertently mentioned as “appeal filed by the revenue is allowed instead of correct finding “appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed” 13.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not controvert the argument advanced by the ld. AR. M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 7 14. Thus, in view of the above, the error crept in the Para Nos. 108, 109 & 111 of the order dated 28/10/2021 stands rectified and may be read as follows. 108. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 182,75,39,552/- made under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income tax Rule. 109. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 311/AHD/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 311/AHD/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2010-11 vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of this order has been partly allowed for statistical purposes. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2010-11 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 111. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2173/AHD/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2173/AHD/2016 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 55 to 55.2 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 113. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 287/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 287/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment 2012-13 has been decided by us vide paragraph Nos. 77 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2012-13 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 113.1 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. M.A Nos.2 to 4/Ahd/2022 ITA nos.287,604, 605/AHD/2018 A.Y.s 2012-13 to 2014-15 8 14.1 In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the combined results, all the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 15/02/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Place : Ahmedabad; Date : 15/02/2023 Manish