Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs Rotex Petrochem (P) Ltd., Hyd, ... on 28 February, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1266/Hyd/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Dy. Commissioner of Income- vs. Rotex Petrochem (P) Ltd.,
tax, Circle - 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
PAN - AAACR 9637 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Revenue by : Smt. Suman Malik
Assessee by : None
Date of hearing 28/02/2018
Date of pronouncement 28/02/2018
O RDE R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 15/07/2016 of ld. CIT(A) - 3, Hyderabad relating to AY 2012-13 wherein the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: .
" 1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred both in law and on facts of the case.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the disallowance of Rs.13,10,137/- made by invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act.
3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has placed the order of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Merilyn Shipping & transports under suspension.
4. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing."2 ITA No. 1266 /Hyd/2016
Rotex Petrochem (P) Ltd..
2. Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee a company, engaged in the business of trading in Lubricants, filed its return of income of Rs. 52,69,478/- on 28/09/2012. The AO disallowed interest payments made to the following NBFC's on the ground that no TDS was deducted:
1. Bajaj capital Rs. 2,54,203
2. Religare Finvest Ltd. Rs. 4,37,579
3. Barclays Finance Rs. 5,22,078
4. Reliance capital Ltd. Rs. 96,277 Total Rs.13,10,137/-
3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act following various decisions including the special bench decision of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transport Vs. Addl. CIT, 136 ITD 23.
4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us.
5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee at the time of hearing of this appeal. However, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and on merits as the issue in dispute is squarely covered.
6. Considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material on record. It is evident from the findings of the CIT(A) that she had followed decision of special bench in the case of Merlyn Shipping and deleted the disallowance made by the AO. Since the law has changed as per the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Palam Gas Vs. CIT, (Civil Appeal No. 5512 of 2017, judgment dated 03/05/2017) the paid/payable issue was put to rest, hence, the case of Merlyn Shipping is not applicable. Therefore, we remit the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merit after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3 ITA No. 1266 /Hyd/2016Rotex Petrochem (P) Ltd..
7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 28 th February, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 28 th February, 2018 kv Copy to:-
1) DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Room No. 714, 7 th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur Road, Hyd.
2) M/s Rotex Petrochem (P) Ltd., 9-4-77/3/11, Yusuf Tekdi, Towlichowki Road, Hyd.
3) CIT(A) - 3, Hyderabad
4) Pr. CIT - 3, Hyd.
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
6) Guard File