Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Acit, Circle-7(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Seven Hills Co-Operative Urban Bank ... on 28 February, 2017
1
ITA.No.1410/Hyd/2016 M/s. Seven Hills
Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A" : HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA.No.1410/Hyd/2016
Assessment Year 2012-2013
The ACIT, Circle-7(1) M/s. Seven Hills Co.Operative
Hyderabad. vs. Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad-012.
PAN AAAAS4904Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Revenue : Shri A. Sitarama Rao
For Assessee : -None-
Date of Hearing : 18.01.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017
ORDER
PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad and it pertains to the A.Y. 2012-2013. The only ground urged by the Revenue reads as under :
2. "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.24,13,200 out of total disallowance of Rs.26,51,451 made by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D disregarding the facts of the case."
2. It may be noticed that the A.O, by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act, made an addition of Rs.26,51,451 out of which the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the disallowance of Rs.24,13,200 and the tax thereon worked-out to less than Rs.10 lakhs. According to the Ld. D.R, an appeal is maintainable though the tax effect is less than the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th 2 ITA.No.1410/Hyd/2016 M/s. Seven Hills Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad December, 2015, if it falls under the exceptional clauses. According to him, the Board Circular has been impliedly held to be illegal or ultravires by way of partially allowing the appeal and therefore, the appeal is maintainable. However, as could be noticed from the order passed by the CIT(A), the deletion of addition is based upon the fact that the A.O. has not brought anything on record to show that interest bearing funds were utilised for the purpose of making investments. In otherwords, the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) was that own funds were utilised for the purpose of investment and therefore, no disallowance can be made under second limb of Rule-8D.
3. No material was placed before us by the Revenue to contradict the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the grounds urged before the Tribunal by the Revenue on both the counts i.e., tax effect is less than the prescribed limit specified by the CBDT circular and on facts, no material was placed to contradict the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 28th February, 2017 VBP/- Copy to
1. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), 8th Floor, Room No.812, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad.
2. M/s. Seven Hills Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., 15-9-372/13, Mahaboobgunj, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad - 500 012.
3. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad.
4. Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad.
5. D.R. ITAT "A" Bench, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File.