The Chikmagalur District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Chickmagalur V. CIT, Mysore

ITA 1004/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7645 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI A RUN KUMAR GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1004 /BANG/201 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 - 08 ) THE CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE CENTRAL B ANK LTD., RATNAGIRI ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101 VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT (DR) (ITAT) - 2, BENGALURU. DATE OF H EARING : 28.08.2017. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 31 .08 . 201 7 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE REVISION ORDER DT. 5.2.2015 PASSED BY THE PRIN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MYSORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07 - 08. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL IS CALLED FOR HEARING. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE EN APPEARING IN THIS 2 ITA NO. 1004 /BA NG/ 201 6 APPEAL DESPITE THE NOTICE ISSUED ON THE EARLIER HEARING WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL EXP ARTE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE BANK ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIKMAGALU R. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON 30.10.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, THE PRIN. CIT FOUND THAT 3 ITA NO. 1004 /BA NG/ 201 6 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE SAME WAS SET ASIDE FOR FRESH EXAMINATION VIDE REVISION ORDER DT.29.3.2012. HOWEVER ON EXAMINATION OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 DT.28.3.2013, THE PRIN. CIT NOTICED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN T ER E ST OF REVENUE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER WIT H OUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF ISSUES MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DT.29.3.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. T HUS THE PRIN. CIT PR OPOSED TO REVISE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.3.2013 BY ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT.9.9.2014 TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D O F THE IT RULES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PRIN. CIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,59,510 UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED OF RS.13,96,405. FURTHER THE PRIN. CIT FOUND THAT THE AUDIT FEES OF RS.2,83,777 PAID TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IS WITHOUT DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE C LAIM OF TDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRIN. CIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4 ITA NO. 1004 /BA NG/ 201 6 ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 DT.28.3.2013 WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS THE ORDER AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE ISSUES AS DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO AFTE R AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIT HAS AGAIN DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THESE ISSUES AND THEN ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE EARLIER DIRECTION OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. FURTHER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FACTS OR CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE PRIN. CIT. 5. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 402 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HOWEVER T HERE IS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE CAUSE OF DELAY EXCEPT THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BELIEF AND IMPRESSION THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS OPEN FOR FRESH DISPOSAL WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE DECISION OF THE PRIN. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT 5 ITA NO. 1004 /BA NG/ 201 6 PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME OF LIMITATION AS INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DID NOT PREFER THE APPEAL. IT APPEARS THAT ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO THE REVISION ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUG., 201 7 . SD / - (A RUN KUMAR GARODIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 31 .08. 2017. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 4 CIT(A) 2 RESPONDENT 5 DR. ITAT, BANGALORE 3 CIT 6 GUARD FILE SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.