SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., Sikar V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

ITA 131/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2740 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: F RAHAMAN
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HE-B, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 131/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 M/S SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., BASANT VIHAR, JAIPUR ROAD, SIKAR CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SIKAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAAS1603E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI F. RAHAMAN (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/02/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/02/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 27.12.2017 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.1 THE VERY ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 R/W 148 IS BAD I N LAW WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BEING VOID AB-INITIO, THE SAME KIN DLY BE QUASHED. CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143 (3)/148 DATED 23.03.2015 ALSO KINDLY BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 143(3)/148 DATED 23.03.2 015 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICT ION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. RS. 10,65,000/-: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE P ROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST MERELY ALLEGING THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOW ABLE UNDER THE ACT. THE ITA NO. 131/JP/2018 M/S SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKA R VS. ITO, SIKAR 2 DISALLOWANCE SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A ), BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ITS CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 WHEREIN THE PROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST OF RS. 10 ,65,000/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2011-12 AND THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTAINE D AT PARA 5.2 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BEFOR E ME. I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE ALREADY DECIDED IN APPELLANT OWN CASE BY THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH ITA NO. 285/JP/2017 IN AY 2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATED 29/08/2017 AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN FINDING ON FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF SUCH NPA AND INTEREST THEREON AS BAD DEBT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION THIS FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ALLOWA BLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS MISPLACED THE SECTION 37 RELATES TO THE ANY EXPENDI TURE NOT BEING EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 30 T O 36 SINCE THE INTEREST IS PART OF THAT WOULD BE COVERED U/S 36(1) (VII) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 131/JP/2018 M/S SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKA R VS. ITO, SIKAR 3 FURTHER, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN OUR VIEW RULE OF CONSISTENCY W OULD APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE PARTICULAR ACCO UNTING POLICY AND THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THE SAME BUT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OR DISALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES WOULD C ERTAINLY DEPEND UPON THE PROVISION OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS GROU ND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TOTALLY SIMILAR. THEREFOR E FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AS DISCUSS ABOVE. I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,65,000/- AS OVERDUE INTEREST. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT AND FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF RAJASTHAN SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD, THE ASSES SEE HAS CREATED THE PROVISION FOR OVERDUE INTEREST OF RS. 10,65,000/- W HICH RELATES TO OLD LOANS AND ADVANCES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST IN THE EAR LIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE . 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTE R IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CON SIDERATION RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION TOWARDS OVERDUE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS . WE FIND THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 285/JP/2017 IN AY 2011-12 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2017, THE SAID ITA NO. 131/JP/2018 M/S SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKA R VS. ITO, SIKAR 4 CLAIM HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CLAIM AS FAIRLY SUBMITTED BY B OTH THE PARTIES, FOLLOWING DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2011-12, THE DI SALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. IN THE RESU LT, GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 7. REGARDING OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, NO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE LD AR, THE SAME ARE THUS DISMISSED AS NOT PR ESSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/02/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26/02/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S SIKAR SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., SIKAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-4, SIKAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 131/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR