Jaysingpur Udgaon Sahakari Bank Ltd., Kolhapur V. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

ITA 156/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76255 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.156/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) JAYSINGPUR UDGAON SAHAKARI BANK LTD., JAYSINGPUR, TAL- SHIROL, DIST KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAAJ0591Q . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, ICHALKARANJI. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. M. K. KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : MR. P. L. PATHADE DATE OF HEARING : 25-02-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-02-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATED 11.10.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 28.1 1.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ONLY ISSUE IS RELATING TO ASS ESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO R S.96,84,563/- WHICH HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.8,00,000/- BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BE TWEEN THE PARTIES THAT IDENTICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007- 08 AND 2008-09 HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NOS.45 AND 46/PN /2012 DATED 05.08.2013. ITA NO.156/PN/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES THAT THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BE ALSO DISPOSED-OFF IN T HE SAID LIGHT. 4. IN DEFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, AND IN ORDER TO IMPART CONSISTENCY, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT IN THE ASSESSE ES OWN CASE THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY VIEW ON THE MERITS OF THE CO NTROVERSY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW AN APPROPRIATE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND THEREAFTER ADJUDICATE THE CONTROVER SY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PREVAILING LEGAL POSITION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING O N 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G . S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR; 4) THE CIT, KOLHAPUR; 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE