ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI V. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

ITA 1811/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7575 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA M BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K S V R KRISHNA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI E BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1811/DEL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 ACIT, VS. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE CIRCLE- 19 (1) CENTRAL ACCOUNTS OFFICE NEW DELHI PLOT NO.5, SECTOR-32, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURGAON PAN NO. AAACO0191M APPELLANT BY : MS. PRAMITA M. BIS WAS, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. K. S. V. R. KRISHNA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27. 08.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDE R DATED 29/12/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.18,00,00,000/- IGNORING THE FACTS PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID LIABILITY WAS NOT C RYSTALLIZED AND WAS UNASCERTAINED AND ASSESSEE HAD ONLY MADE A PROVISION FOR THE SAME WHEREAS THE OUTFLOW COULD BE MORE OR LESS. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD AND ALTER ANY FRESH GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND / OR DELETE OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUND (S) OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A NATIONALISED BANK AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING INCLUDING ACCEPTING DEPOSIT FROM PUBLIC FOR THE PUR POSE OF LENDING, INVESTMENT ETC. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, T HE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27/09/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.963, 08,18,932/-WHICH WAS FINALLY REVISED TO RS.769,94,1 2,146 ON 23/02/2015. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT) COMPLETED ON 20/03/2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSE SSED TOTAL INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AT RS.199 6,43,16,100/- AND AT BOOK PROFIT OF RS.3453,63,30,299/-. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THE BOOK PROFIT TO RS.3 471,63,30 ,299/- IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 26/04/2016. IN THE IMPUGNED RECTIFICATION ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.18,00,00,000/- WAS ADDED A S AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY IN NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE A CT WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE SAME WA S TO BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. THUS HE RECTIFIED THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITION MADE UNDER NOR MAL PROVISIONS WAS ALSO DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL AG AINST ORDER U/S 143 (3) BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT LIABILITY IS A SCERTAINED LIABILITY. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEOCONF ERENCING FACILITY AND FILED PAPERBOOK AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TH ROUGH EMAIL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIE S ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN RE CTIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, AND FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE RELEVA NT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.4.2 THE APPELLANT, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CLAIME D THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 154 AS THERE IS NO MIST AKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RE CTIFIED. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER 143(3} IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED AFTER CONSIDERING AND EXAMINING THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE SUM OF RS. 18,00,00,0 00/- AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION WHICH IS AS PER RBI CIRCULAR. T HE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U /S 143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A)-36 VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 31.01.2017 IN APPEAL NO. 238/2016- 17 HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHILE ALLOWING THIS RELIEF TH E CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE PREVIOUS ORDER OF A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010- 11 AND HOLD THAT THE LIABILITY DETERMINED IN RESPECT OF INTERES T ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS IS DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS D ELETED. 4.4.3 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS APPARENT THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 8,00,00,000/- WAS MADE AS INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS IN THE A.Y. 20 13-14 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) WHICH WAS CHALL ENGED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 IN APPEAL NO. 238/2016-17(NEW APPEAL) AND APPEAL NO. 2 04/2015- 16(OLD APPEAL) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2017 HAS DISC USSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 6.4 AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. THE RELEVANT PARA 6.4 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- '6.4 INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS RS. 18.00 CRORES: - THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST DISALLOWA NCE OF CLAIM OF RS. 18.00 CRORE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE D EPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER THE BANK WAS ACCOUN TING FOR INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL OF SUCH DEPOSITS. SINCE THE A. Y. 2009-10 THE BANK HAS CONSISTENTLY ACCOUNT ED FOR SUCH INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS BY MAKING A PROVISION AT THE RATE OF SAVING BANK DEPOSITS AND THE BALANCE OVERDUE INTERE ST IN ACCOUNTED FOR AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL. THIS IS AS PER THE RBI CIRCULAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BUT IT IS ONLY CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING POLICY AS GUIDED BY TH E RBI WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY SINCE TH E A. Y. 2009-10. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THIS CHANGE, THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED SUM OF RS. 18 CRORE AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AS PE R RBI CIRCULAR IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. AO OBSERVED THAT THE AMO UNT OF PROVISIONS CREATED PERTAINS TO UNASCERTAINED LIABIL ITY WHICH HAS NOT CRYSTALLIZED AND ONLY A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE AT THE SAVINGS BANK INTEREST RATE WHEREAS THE ACTUAL OUTFLOW COULD BE MORE. AO OBSERVED THAT THE RBI GUIDELINES LAY DOWN AN ADVISO RY FOR TREATMENT OF PROVISIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF CUSTOMERS, BUT IT N O WAY STIPULATES THAT THE PROFITS HAVE TO BE DECREASED TO THAT EXTEN T FOR TAXATION PURPOSES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RS.18 CRORES WAS DI SALLOWED. IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO IN A.Y. 2 009-10 AND A.Y. 2010-11 IN WHICH LD C1T (A) VIDE ORDERS DATED HELD AS UNDER: '5.5.4 THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT INTEREST IS LIABLE TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO THE DEPOSITORS ON THESE TIME DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ABOVE LIABILITIES ARE DEFINITE LIABILITI ES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ACCOUNTED FOR INTEREST ON OVE RDUE DEPOSITS AT THE RATE OF SAVING BANK DEPOSITS AND THE BALANCE OV ERDUE INTEREST IS ACCOUNTED FOR AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL AS PER THE RBI CIRCULAR. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ABOVE LIABILITIES A T THE RATE OF SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS ARE ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES CRYSTALLI ZED DURING THE DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNTS AT THE RATE OF SAVING ACCOU NT DEPOSITS CANNOT BE LOWER THAN THE LIABILITY AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL. 5.5.5. THE ASSESSEE IS A NATIONALIZED BANK AND GOVE RNED BY BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1974. THE ASSESSEE IS BOUN D TO ACT AS PER RBI CIRCULAR. THE RBI CIRCULAR NO. DBOD NO. LEG.BC.34/09.07.005/2008-09 DATED 22.08.2008 IN PAR A 2 (XI) SAYS:- '(XI) INTEREST ON SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE C REDITED ON REGULAR BASIS WHETHER THE ACCOUNT IS OPERATIVE OR N OT. IF A FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT MATURES AND PROCEEDS ARE UNPAID, TH E AMOUNT LEFT UNCLAIMED WITH THE BANK WILL ATTRACT SAVINGS BANK R ATE OF INTEREST.' FURTHER, THE ABOVE RBI CIRCULAR IS NEITHER INCONSIS TENT NOR CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT DEBITED THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF OVERDUE DEPOSIT S AT THE RATE OF SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS AS PER RBI CIRCULAR IN A BONA FIDE MANNER. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BUT ONLY CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING POLICY AS GUIDED BY THE R BI. 5.5.6 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN BHARAT EART H MOVERS LTD. VS CIT [245 ITR 428] HELD THAT IF A BUSINESS LIABILITY HAS DEFINITELY ARISEN IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY MAY HAVE TO BE QUANTIFIED AN D DISCHARGED AT A FUTURE DATE. WHAT SHOULD BE CERTAIN IS THE INCURRIN G OF THE LIABILITY. IT SHOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF BEING ESTIMATED WITH REAS ONABLE CERTAINTY THOUGH THE ACTUAL QUANTIFICATION MAY NOT BE POSSIBL E. IF THESE REQUIREMENT ARE SATISFIED, THE LIABILITY IS NOT A C ONTINGENT ONE. THE LIABILITY IS IN PRAESENTI THOUGH IT WILL BE DISCHAR GED AT A FUTURE DATE. IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY'DIFFERENCE IF THE FUTURE DATE ON WHICH THE LIABILITY SHALL HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED IS NOT CERTAI N. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN METAL BOX CO. OF INDIA LTD. VS THEIR WORKMEN [73 ITR 53] AND CALCUTTA CO. LTD. VS. CIT [37 ITR 1 ]. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL A ND LEGAL POSITION AS THE LIABILITY DETERMINED AS PER RBI CIRCULAR ARE DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINED LIABILITY, TH EREFORE, ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS SUCH THIS GROUN D IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT.' THE GROUND IS EXACTLY THE SAME AND THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED IN A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. I AM THEREFORE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE ORDE R OF LD CIT (A) IN THESE YEARS AND ALLOW THE INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOS ITS. THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE DELETED.' 4.4.4 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, T HE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) OF A.Y . 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2011-12 ON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED AND THE STATUS OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT. IN RESPONSE, THE APPELL ANT HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THESE ORDERS AND FROM THIS, I T IS GATHERED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2009-10 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITA NO. 6795 & 6796/DEL./2013 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF BY HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.201 6 BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 14 OF THE ORDER AND RESTORED BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. RELEVANT PARA 14 OF THIS ORDER IS REP RODUCED BELOW-: '14 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAD MADE A PROVISION OF RS.8 3.00 CRORES IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS AT THE RATE OF SAVING BANK INTEREST ON TIME DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS FO LLOWED THE RBI CIRCULAR NO. DBOD NO.LEG.BC.34/09.07.005/2008-09 DA TED 22.08.2008. INSTRUCTION NO. (XI) OF THE ABOVE RBI C IRCULAR READS AS UNDER: (XI) INTEREST ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE CR EDITED ON REGULAR BASIS WHETHER THE ACCOUNT IS OPERATIVE OR NOT. IF A FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT MATURES AND PROCEEDS ARE UNPAID, THE AMOUNT LEFT UNCLAIMED WITH THE BANK WILL ATTRACT SAVINGS BANK R ATE OF INTEREST.' THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY THE ID. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE BANK IS COVERED BY THE BANKING REGULAT ION ACT, 1949 AND IT HAS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA WHICH REGULATES ALL THE BANKS OPERATION IN INDIA. THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE RESERVE B ANK OF INDIA AND FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE BANKS ARE IL'.O PREPARED B Y THE BANKS AS PER THE PRESCRIBED NORMS FIXED BY RBI. THE DESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAS CONSIDERED IN ITS CIRCULAR THAT INTEREST SHOULD BE PAID AT THE RATE OF SAVING BANKS INTEREST RATE ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS MADE THE PROVISION OF RS.83.00 CR ORES AS ON THE DATE OF BALANCE SHEET, I.E., 31.03.2009. NO SUCH PR OVISION IS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN MADE * BY THE ASSESSEE BANK PRIOR TO T HIS CIRCULAR. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT. THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO IDENTIFY THE CUSTOMERS TO WHOM SUCH INTEREST IS PAYABLE AND FOR WHICH PERIOD AND THAT THE STATUTORY AUDITORS OF THE BANK HAVE QUALIFIED THAT THE BANK HAS CHANGED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNT. TH E ID. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD O F ACCOUNTING, BUT IT WAS THE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING POLICY WHICH IS NECESS ARY TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF RBI IN PREPARING THE FINANCIAL STATEM ENT. THE ID'. C1T(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE AND RELIED ON A DECISION AS IS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. HOWEVE R, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE UNTIL IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE T O THE CUSTOMERS OR NOT. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF AO FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE TO VERIFY WHETHER ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE CUSTOMERS OR NOT AND TO DECIDE THE SAME ACCORDINGLY AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESS EE SHALL BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 OF REVENUE'S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES.' 4.4.5 SUBSEQUENT TO THIS RESTORATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER U/S 254/250/143(3] OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.2017 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BY OBSERVING THE FOLLOWING I N PARA 2 OF THE ORDER :- ALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR INTEREST ON OVERDUE TERM DEPOSITS: WHILE EXAMINING THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL PAYMENT OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE CUSTO MER OR NOT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, NOTICE DATED 20.03 .2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS REPLIED ON 21.03.2017. TH E SAME IS EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT IN THE SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM: I. REGION-WISE DETAIL OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE TERM D EPOSIT. II. BRANCH-WISE DETAIL OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE TERM DEPOSIT FOR REGIONAL OFFICE, AGRA. III. DEPOSIT POLICY OF THE BANK IV. THE DEPOSITOR EDUCATION AND AWARENESS FUND SCHE ME (DEAF), 2014 OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. V. CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 1 ISSUED BY THE AUDITOR WHICH SHOWS THAT THE BANK HAS TRANSFERRED THE DEAF SCHEME ALONG WITH INT EREST. PERUSAL OF DEPOSIT POLICY AND DEAF SCHEME SHOWS THA T BANK IS, IN ANY CASE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON OVERDUE LIABILITY WHICH HAS BEEN PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED.' 4.4.6 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS ISSU E HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY CIT(A) V IDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 AND IN RESPONSE TO BY HONBLE ITAT ORDER DATED 27.12.2016 BY ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER DATED 27.03 .2017, SUBSEQUENTLY PASSING THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 15 4 DATED 26.04.2016 WHICH IS A SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL. IN THIS LIGHT, AS ON MERIT, THE APPELLANT HAS ALREA DY GOT RELIEF VIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 31.01.2017, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO GET RELIEF ON THE MAT PROVISIONS ALSO SINCE THIS HAS BE EN TREATED AS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMS ELF VIDE ORDER DATED 27/12/2016. IN THIS LIGHT, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT. {5} GROUND NO. 3, 4, 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AN D DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. {6} IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE MATT ER WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DATED 27/03/2017 PAS SED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEPOSITS. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THEN ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RECTIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MAKI NG ADDITION ON THE SAME GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 I.E. PRE SENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.08.2021 . SD/- SD/- ( K. NARASIMHA CHARY ) (O.P KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27.08.2021 *NEHA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 27.08.2021 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER