Shri. Veerpulakeshi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Badami V. ACIT, Bijapur

CO 19/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6550 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR AJEET JT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER C.O. NO.19/BANG/2011 (IN ITA NO.34/BANG/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI VEERPULAKESHI CO-OP. BANK LTD., BADAMI. BAGALKOT DIST. PAN : AAAS1704L VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BIJAPUR. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR BY : SHRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KUMAR AJEET, JT.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2011 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REL EVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AND ARISING OUT OF ITA NO . 34/BANG/2011 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.201 0 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-, BELGAUM. IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND: CO NO.19/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.94,06,565/- TOWARDS INTEREST RECEIVABLE ON LOANS, BUT NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 2. FROM THE ABOVE GROUND, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOUGHT ANY SPECIFIC RELIEF, RATHER SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). SINCE THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, SO THIS CROSS OBJECTION BEC OMES INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. [1982] 136 ITR 315 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD: THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCEEDED WHOLLY BEFORE THE AAC THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR CROSS-OB JECTION. A CROSS-OBJECTION, BEING IN THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL, ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WOULD MEAN INTERFERING WITH THE OR DER OF THE AAC AND AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE DEPARTMEN TAL APPEAL AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AAC, IT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN LIMINE AS NOT BEING ENTERTAINAB LE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TECHNICALLY ALLOWING THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. CO NO.19/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEROGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 17 TH OCTOBER, 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. CROSS OBJECTOR 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.