Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Cuttack V. ACIT, Cuttack

ITA 182/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 18222114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MATI PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: A K MISHRAD DASH ARS
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 CUTTACK CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NIMCHOURI, CUTTACK. PAN: AAABC 0373 Q - - - VERSUS - ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI A.K.MISHRA/D.DASH, ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / S RI MATI PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR. / DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.09.2012 / ORDER . . . , SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E - TAX (APPEALS) DT.6.3.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUB MISSION AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN AN ARBITRARY AND CRYPTIC MANNER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND FOR THAT MATTER THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AS W ELL THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND/OR ANNULLED. 2 . THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) READ WITH S ECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT AS THE APPELLANT IS A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. 3 . THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT QUASHING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BE EN PASSED I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 2 WITHOUT PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED. 4 . THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT QUASHING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH IS BASED ON THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED ON AN EXTRANEOUS REASON AND WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. 5 . THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN L AW AND IN FACT BY NOT ALLOWING THE PROVISION FOR NPA ON MERCANTILE BASIS AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS BAD DEBTS AND FOR THAT MATTER THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER OF 23,86,48,201 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS LIABL E TO BE DELETED. 6 . THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 25,72,876 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED ON SUCH PAYMENT AND FOR WHICH THE SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS NOT APP LICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 7 . THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT BY NOT DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS NOTHING REMAINS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 3. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEA RD REGARDING THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL AND ANALYZING THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATIN G TO THE ISSUES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BANKING AND FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ON 30.09 .2009 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT 2,51,09,350 . THIS RETURN WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING STATUTORY MANDATORY NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DT. 6.3.2012 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE TOT AL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 3 26,63,30,450 BY PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961. 5. HAVING BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIA L MADE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED WHAT WERE CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. APART FROM THAT IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE UNSUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY SOUGHT FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE LEARNED DR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED S UPPORTING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES CONTENDED THAT FOR EVERY ISSUE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE REFERRED TO THE CONCERNED PROVISIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE SUPERIOR FORUMS ON THE ASPECTS AND BASING ON THEM ONLY THEY HAVE PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT INFIRMED IN ANY WAY REQUIRING INTERFERENCE. HENCE, THE LEARNED DR SOUGHT FOR UPHOLDING THE SAME BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 4 8. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF AVAILABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY U/S.80P(4) OF THE I.T.ACT, IN VIEW OF THE AS SESSEE BEING A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. THIS ISSUE WAS ANSWERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FROM PARAGRAPH 6.1 ONWARDS IN HIS ORDER, WHEREIN HE OBSERVE AS TO WHAT ARE THE OBJECTS OF THE CENTRAL BANK AND WHO ARE ENTITLED TO BE MEMBERS OF THE SAID CENT RAL BANK, WITH REFERENCE TO THE BYE - LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID BYE - LAWS IT IS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE A MEMBER OF THE CENTRAL BANK. THE FOLLOWING S MAY BE ADMITTED AS MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL BANK . (A) EVERY CO - OPERATIVE SO CIETY WITHIN THE AREA OF OPERATION OF THE CENTRAL BANK. (B) THE STATE GOVERNMENT (C) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (D) THE ORISSA CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (E) PANCHAYAT SAMITEE OR GRAM SASAN SITUATED WHOLLY OR PARTLY WITHIN THE AREA OF O PERATION OF THE CENTRAL BANK. (F) ORISSA KHADI & V.1. BOARD AND (G) ANY OTHER BODY CORPORATE, WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE REGISTRAR PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (4) OF S ECTION 80P INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT,2006 W.E.F. 1 APRIL, 2 007 PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. IN THE SAID PROVISIONS, THERE ARE DEFINITIONS REGARDIN G COOPERATIVE BANK, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY AND PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. CBDT HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO.14/2006 DT.18.12.2006 EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 80P(4), WHEREIN IT IS CATEGORI CALLY MENTIONED THAT SECTION 80P, INTER ALIA, PROVIDES FOR A DEDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 5 MEMBERS, OR BUSINESS OF A COTTAGE INDUSTRY, OR OF MARKETING O F AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, OR PROCESSING, WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER, OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, ETC. IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT T HE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS ARE FUNCTIONING AT PAR WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS, WHICH DO NOT ENJOY ANY TAX BEN EFIT. THEREFORE, SECTION 80P HAS BEEN AMENDED AND A NEW SUB - SECTION (4) HAS BEEN INSERTED TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE NEW SUB - CLAUSE (VIIA) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN CLAUSE (24) OF S ECTION 2 TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROFITS AND GA INS OF ANY BUSINESS OF BANKING INCLUDING PROVIDING CREDIT FA CILITIES CARRIED ON BY A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH ITS MEMBERS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF INCOME. THERE AFTERWARDS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA V. WOOD PAPERS LTD (AIR 1991 SC 2049) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANAKAPALLI CO - OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., [(2000) 245 ITR 616 (AP)], WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONCESSIONS ARE ORDINARIL Y EXPECTED TO BE RIGIDLY INTERPRETED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THUS OBSERVING, HE DISMISSED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 8.1. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE THERETO AND ALSO IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DICTUMS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT STATED SUPRA. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION SO REACHED BY THE LEARNED I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 6 CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE REQUIRING INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND DEVOID OF MERIT AND IS DISMISSED. 9. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED ON THE OTHER ISSUES OBJECTING THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT WITHOUT PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S.143(1) WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH RETURN WAS FILED. 9.1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 3.1 ONWARDS. WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE, THELEARNED CIT(A) HAS THREADBARE CONSIDERED THEPROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 143(2) AS WELL AS SECTION 142(1) OF THE I.T.ACT AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF HIGHER FORUMS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH3.3 ND PARA 3.3.1 OF HIS ORDER. THIS TRIBUNAL OF HYDERABAD BENCH HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF SUVARNA ACQUA FARM & EXPORTS LTD., V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER THAT IF A RETURN IS NOT PROCESSED U/S.143(1), IT MAY NOT ACT AS A BAR TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3). HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM TRADING CO., V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER (188ITR 641) AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHUBHRA MOTEL V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER AND THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHYAM SUNDAR GUPTA V. CIT (276 ITR 592) HAS HELD THAT NO ASSESSEE CAN , AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, DEMAND TO BE TREATED AS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE. SECTION 143(2) RESTORES THE NORMAL PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT QUESTION THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER BY THE REVENUE UNLESS PATENT ARBITRARINESS OR MALA FIDES ARE ESTABLISHED ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTUAL ASPECTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HA ND, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH ANY ARBITRARINESS OR MALAFIDES ON THE PART OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THESE THING, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT MERITORIOUS. I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 7 9.2 . ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF CONCLUSION EACHED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS FOUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THEPRESENT CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE ON HAND AND PASSED THE DECISION IN LINE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY T HIS TRIBUNAL OF HYDERABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND M.P. HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DECISION REACHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT INFIRMED IN ANY WAY REQUIRING INTERFERENCE. HENCE, THE ISSUE R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BY UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/SD.143(2) ISSUED ON EXTRANEOUS R EASON AND WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10.1. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE ISSUE OF PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) WITHOUT PASSING 143(1) ORDER. HENCE, FOR THE REASONS STATED SUPRA, WE FIND T HE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED BY UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 11. NOW COMING TO THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES IN NOT ALLOWING THE PROVISIONS FOR NPA ON MERCANTILE BASIS AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11.1. THIS ISSUE IS DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FROM PARAGRAPH 4.1 ONWARDS. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE I.T.ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASE S OF SESHASAYEE BROS LTD. V. CIT [ 42 ITR 568 (MAD.) ], CIT V. CALCUTTA AGENCY [19 ITR 191 (SC)] , NUND & SAMONT CO (P ) LTD V. CIT [78 ITR 268 (SC)] , CIT V. CALCUTTA AGENCY I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 8 [19 ITR 191 (SC), UNITED STEEL V. CULLINGTO [9 ITR SUPPL. 20,35 (HL) AND HOTZ V. CIT [6 ITR 243), HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE SEEKS TO DEDUCT FROM HIS PROFITS CERTAIN ITEMS, THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT SUCH DEDUCTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE FALLS ON HIM. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (VIIA) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36, CLEARLY MANDATES THAT DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN AND ONE - HALF PERCENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID CLAUSE AND CHAPTER - VIA AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING TEN PERCENT OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF A SCHEDULED BANK OR A NON - SCHEDULED BANK COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER IS ALLOWED AS DE DUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SUCH BANKS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND O.D. INTEREST AMOUNTING TO 23,75,64,648 FALLS UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. HENCE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THERE IS NO ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD THE SAME. 11.2. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS VERY MUCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE I.T.ACT AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED ON BY HIM AS STATED SUPRA. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT TH E CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT INFIRMED IN ANY WAY REQUIRING INTERFERENCE. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDE RED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISION FOR UNRECONCILED ACCOUNT AND BRANCH ADJUSTMENT ACCOUNT OF 43,331 AND PROVISION AGAINST RECOVERY OF 10,40,222. HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT A PROVISION FOR CONTINGENT OR I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 9 UNA CCRUED LIABILITY WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. WHILE COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION, HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INDIAN MOLASSES CO. P. LTD. V. CIT (37 ITR 66 AT PAGE 76). ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE SAID DE CISION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME BY FIND ING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEVOID OR MERIT. 13. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 25,72,876 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 13.1. THIS ISSUE IS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH 5.1 ONWARDS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DT.17.6.2011IN ITA NO.195/CTK/2010 IN THE CASE OF SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA. BESID ES THIS, HE HAS ANALYSED THE ISSUE THREADBARE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCED RELIED UPON BY HIM, WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. JAIPUR BIDYUT VITARAN LIMITED V. DCIT (2009) 123 TTJ 888 (JP) , 2. TEJA CONSTRUCTION V. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (129 TTJ (HYD)(UO) 57, 3. K.SRINIVASH NADU ( 131 TTJ (HYD) (UO) 17, 4. BHORUKA FINANCE CORPORATION V.UNION OF INDIA [202 ITR 723 (KARN) 5. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA V. PEERLESS GENRAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD., (AIR 1997 (SC) 1023), 6. J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD V.CI T (AIR (1994) (SC) 2393), 7. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE V. KALU RAM (1976) 3 SCC 407, AND I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 10 8. ORDER OF HYDERBAD B BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL DT.16.7.2010 IN ITA NO.1081/HYD/09 IN THE CASE OF M/S.PARNIKA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 13.2. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE DEC ISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS WELL REASONED ONE AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) REQUIRING INTERFERENCE. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME BY FINDING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 14. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RELATING TO THE ISSUE CONSIDERED SUPRA IN THE IMMEDIAT E PARAGRAPH. HENCE, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND AS SUCH, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE: 14.09.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. / THE APPELLANT : CUTTACK CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NIMCHOURI, CUTTACK 2 / THE RESPONDENT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), CUTTACK. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 182/CTK/2012 11 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 04.09.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFO RE THE DICTATING MEMBER 05.09.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 14.09.2012 . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..