The Asst. CIT, Kakinada V. The District Co- Operative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada

ITA 140/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6606 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SATYANANDAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 12; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 140 & 141 / VIZ /201 7 (ASST. YEAR S : 20 12 - 1 3 & 2013 - 14 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KAKINADA . V S . THE DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., D.NO. 70 - 1 - 28/1, NAGAMALLITHOTA, KAKINADA PAN NO. AAAAT 4266 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( ITA NO S . 140 & 141 / VIZ /201 7) (ASST. YEAR S : 20 12 - 13 & 2013 - 14 ) THE DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., D.NO. 70 - 1 - 28/1, NAGAMALLITHOTA, KAKINADA VS . ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KAKINADA. PAN NO. AAAAT 4266 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T. SATYANANDAM SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 03 / 0 1 /201 8 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 / 01 /201 8 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS O BJECTIONS FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE 2 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , GUNTUR , EACH DATED 22/1 2 /201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2012 - 13 & 20 13 - 1 4 . ITA NO. 140/VIZ/2017 & C.O.NO. 51/VIZ/2017 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY IS CARRYING ON BANKING ACTIVITIES , HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,00,581/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') . 3 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,04,63,143/ - TO WARDS BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS RESERVE AND THE SAME WAS NOT ADDED BACK TO THE NET PROFIT IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET AND ALSO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF RS. 1,06,72,938/ - CLAIMED W RONGLY, INSTEAD OF RS.1,04,63,143/ - , WHICH WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED/ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 - 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS RESERVES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF RS.1,04,63,143/ - IS NOT ADDED BACK WHILE ARRIVING TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS 3 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) BY OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSULTANT THAT THE MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED AND AGREED THAT SPECIFIC RESERVES OF RS. 1,04,63,143/ - DEBI TED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS TO BE ADDED BACK WHILE ARRIVING AT TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALCULATED THE TAXABLE INCOME AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SEPARATELY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT WRONGLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,06,72,938/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , DATED 04/02/2015. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D FROM THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CL A IMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,04,63,143/ - AS BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND THE SAME WAS NOT ADDED BACK TO THE NET PROFIT IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET AND ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF RS.1,06,72,938/ - CLAIMED WRONGLY INSTEAD OF RS. 1,04,63,143/ - WHICH WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED EXPLAN A TION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DUE TO OVERSIGHT, THE CONSU LTANT HAS COMMITTED MISTAKE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS . HOW E VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ACCEPTED 4 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4 . ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , WHO DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT IT WAS MORE OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE INACCURATE CONTENTS OF THE AUDIT REPORT BY WHICH EVEN THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUFFERED , THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED IN THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION S BY CHALL ENG ING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: - 2. THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SPECIFY THE EXACT GROUND FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH AMBIGUOUS NOTICE IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 6 . LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 22 ) DATED 04/02/2015 , IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVALID IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE 5 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS [(2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 248 (SC)] AND ALSO THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA & A.P. IN I.T.T.A. NO. 684/2016 IN PCIT VS. SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI DATED 30/07/2017 . 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SURE ABOUT THE PENALTY , WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS . T HEREFORE , IT IS PREMATURE TO DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VALID NOTICE AND STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US IS WHETHER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 04/02/2015 IS VALID OR NOT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/02/2015 IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 1 3 , IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU , H AVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 6 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) 1 0. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A VAGUE NOTICE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) . THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KONCHADA SREERAM VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 388/VIZ/2015 , BY ORDER DATED 06/10/2017 HAS CONSIDER ED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE BY FOLLO W ING THE ABOVE REFERRED TO JUDGMENT S AND HELD THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A VALID NOTICE AND ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED THE SURVEY U/S 133A AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,43,041/ - AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C). THE FACT IS THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY HAVE COME TO THE NOTIC E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AND ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THE PRINTED PROFORMA OF PENALTY. THE AO HAS ISSUED THE PENALTY NOTICE WHICH REA DS AS UNDER : 7 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE ME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR SOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 6.1. FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS PER THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE OF WHICH LIMB OF THE OFFENCE HE SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION FROM THE AS SESSEE, WHETHER IT WAS FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED, FOR STARTING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS EITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IMP OSITION OF PENALTY IS PROPOSED AS HE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE REVENUE SO AS TO SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AND THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PA Y THE PENALTY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE LAW CITED HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF THE REVENUE IN SENDING THE PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN 271(1)(C) ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQU ENCE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HAS TO PAY THE PENALTY RANGING FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) HAVE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA MANDATED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED SHOULD BE SET OUT THE GROUNDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY, OTHERWISE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD BE OFFENDED AS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WOULD BE VAGUE. ON THE SIMILAR FACTS, HONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 248(SC). LD. DRS ARGUMENT THAT THE CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE PASSING OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ISSUE IS THE DEFECTIVE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) BUT NOT THE PENALTY ORDER. UNLESS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) IS VALID THE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT STRIKE OFF THE IRRELEVANT COLUMN IN THE NOTICE AND MADE KNOWN THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO THE AO SIMPLY RECORDED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INI TIATED SEPARATELY. NEITHER 8 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN THE PENALTY NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PUT THE ASSESSEE ON NOTICE FOR WHICH OFFENCE, THE PENALTY U/S 271 WAS INITIATED. THEREFORE, THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CITED (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: ON PRINCIPLE, WHEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF 1961, THE SPECIFIC GROUND WHICH FORMS THE FOUNDATION THEREFORE HAS TO BE SPELT OUT IN CLEAR TERMS OTHERWISE , ON ASSESEE WOULD NOT HAVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH HIS DEFENCE. WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENAL IN NATURE RESULTING IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTY RANGING FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY, THE CHARGE MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNAMBIGUOUS. WHEN THE CHARGE IS EITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF , THE REVENUE MUST SPECI F Y AS TO WHICH ONE OF THE TWO IS SOUGHT TO BE PRESSED INTO SERV ICE AND CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO CLUB BOTH BY INTERJECTING AN 'OR' BETWEEN THE TWO, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THIS AMBIGUITY IN THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED PRESENTLY BY THE CONFUSED FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF BOTH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL DOES NOT BROOK INTERFERENCE ON ANY GROUND. WE FIND NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL ONE, ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION WARRANTING ADMISSION OF THIS APPEAL. 6.2. ON THE SIMILAR FACTS, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ITA NO.229/VIZ/2015 IN THE CASE OF NARAYANA REDDY ENTERPRISES, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. MAKINA ANNAPURNA VS. ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ITA NOS.604 & 605/VIZAG/2014 DATED 2.2.2017 HELD THAT NON - STRIKING OF THE IRRELEVANT COLUMN RENDERS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271 AS INVALID. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA AND THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL CITED (SUPRA), W E HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271 IS INVALID AND CONSEQUENT PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO IS CANCELLED. 1 1 . WE THEREFORE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 9 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KONCHADA SREERAM (SUPRA) , WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 04/02/2015 UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) I S INVALID AND, THE RE FORE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CANCELLED. THUS, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 141/VIZ/2017 & C.O.NO. 52/VIZ/2017 1 2 . SO FAR AS THIS APPEAL IS CONCERNED , T HE OPERATIVE P ART OF THE N OTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU, HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 1 3 FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SIMILAR TO THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE NOTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, FOR THE SAME REASONS NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 08/06/2015 FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED . ACCORDINGLY, WE DO SO. THUS, CROSS 10 ITA NO S . 140 & 141/VIZ/2017 C.O.NOS. 51 & 52/VIZ/2017 ( THE DISTRICT CO - OP CENTRAL BANK LTD. ) OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 05 TH DAY OF JAN . , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 05 TH JANUARY , 201 8 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE THE DISTRICT CO - OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., D.NO. 70 - 1 - 28/1, NAGAMALLITHOTA, KAKINADA . 2. THE REVENUE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, KAKINADA. 3. THE PR. CIT - 2 , VISAKHAPATNAM . 4. THE CIT(A) - 2 , GUNTUR . 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.