The Midnapur Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., Paschim Medinipur V. ACIT, Circle-1, Midnapore, Kolkata

ITA 1852/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7776 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C J SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMAK BASU
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED..... ....................APPELLANT ALIGANJ, POST OFFICE-MIDNAPORE, DIST. PASCHIM MIDNAPORE-721101, WEST BENGAL [PAN: AAAAT6290J] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.......... ..................RESPONDENT CENTRAL-1, MIDNAPORE, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOMAK BASU, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT, SR. D.R , FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 17, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 24, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 21.07.2016, PASSED BY TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLKATA FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 AND SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE COMMON, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 BEING ITA NO. 1851/KOL/2016. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 0,00,000/- MADE BY ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PERFORMING A SSETS (NPA). 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A BANK, WHIC H FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 05.10.2010 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.18,53,335/-. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, A SUM OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS DEBITED ON ACCO UNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR NON-PERFORMING ASSETS (NPA). ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE SAID PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR A CONTI NGENT OR UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWA BLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE, THEREFORE, DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR NPA. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAID DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN I N HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE , IT IS ULTIMATELY THE RBI WHICH DECIDES AND PUBLISHES THE DATA ABOUT RURAL BRANCHES AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE CONCEPT OF RURAL BRANCHES AS USED BY RBI VIS-A-VIS THAT OF NABARD. A RURAL BRANCH SHOULD BE SITUATED IN A VILLAGE, WHICH MAY BE UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT OR IN A TOWN BUT THE POPULATIO N SHOULD NOT EXCEED 10000. SO THE FIRST REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE LOCATION SHOULD BE A VILLAGE, AS PER THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THE DISTRICT. ASSESSEE'S RELIANCE ON THE WARD-WISE POPULATION DAT A OF MIDNAPORE MUNICIPALITY AND SINGLING OUT A PARTICULA R WARD FOR CLAIMING RURAL BRANCH STATUS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. MUNICIPALITY COMPRISES OF ENTIRE TOWN AND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CON VENIENCE IT IS DIVIDED INTO SEVERAL WARDS. THESE WARDS ARE N OT 'VILLAGES' AS PER REVENUE RECORDS OF THE DISTRICT. ALL THE WARDS TOGETHER MAKE THE TOWN AND THE POPULATION OF THE EN TIRE MIDNAPORE TOWN HAS TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE FIGURE OF 10000. HENCE, APPELLANTS CLAIM REGARDING MIDNAPORE BRANCH TO BE A RURAL BRANCH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENT ITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) IN RESPECT OF THIS BRANCH . NOW CORNING TO THE 2 ND BRANCH AT CHANDRAKONA ROAD, IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE PRADHAN OF SATBANKURA GRA M PANCHAYAT THAT THE C. K. ROAD BRANCH IS SITUATED AT BILA MOUZA HAVING A POPULATION OF ONLY 4085 AS PER 2011 CENSUS AND 3143 AS PER 2001 CENSUS. HOWEVER, INFORMATION G ATHERED FROM INTERNET SHOWS THAT BILA MOUZA ALONGWITH SEVER AL OTHER MOUZAS COMBINED TO ETHER ARE CALLED CHANDRAKONA TOW N. THIS ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 3 TOWN HAD A POPULATION OF 20400 AS PER 2001 CENSUS. SEVERAL SCHEDULED BANKS, LIKE STATE BANK OF INDIA, UCO BANK , BANK OF INDIA, ALLAHABAD BANK, AXIS BANK AND SEVERAL OTHER COOPERATIVE BANKS ARE LOCATED IN THIS TOWN. AS THE POPULATION OF CHANDRAKONA TOWN IS MORE THAN 10,000, EVEN THE S ECOND BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 36(1)(VIIA).. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AS DISCUSSED ABO VE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR NPA WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE POPULATION OF MIDNAPORE TOWN BEING MUCH HIGHER THAN 10,000, THE ASSESSEES MIDNAPORE BRANCH WAS NOT A RURAL BRANCH AND IT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA). H E HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPEC T OF POPULATION OF THE MIDNAPORE TOWN IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THE ASSES SEE HAS GATHERED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUBST ANTIATE ITS CASE:- (I) A COPY OF THE POPULATION CERTIFICATE DATED 01.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICER, PASCHIM MIDNAPORE; (II) A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01.09.2016 ISS UED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES , PASCHIM MIDANPORE RANGE. HE HAS FILED THE ABOVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION SEEKI NG ADMISSION THEREOF ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E AFTER PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 4 THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE RELEVANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS ADMITTED BY US. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE AS WELL AS FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTE R VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT, THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IN ONE OF SUCH DECISION S RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S. SRB & ASSOCIATES LLP (ITA NO. 498/KOL/2015) , A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 4 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER:- 4. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING THROU GH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS DEA LT BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS UNDER.' '3. AT THE OUTSET, ID. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS, THE ISSU E RELATES TO ALLOWABILITY OF PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (F) OF SECTION 4 38 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED IT S CLAIM RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KOLKAT A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD . REPORTED IN 292 ITR 470. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OBSERVI NG THAT DEPORTMENT HAS PREFERRED A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BIE SUPREME COURT AND STAY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT WAS GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. LD. SENIOR COUNS EL SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IT, ACCORDANC E WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 5 CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA -VS.- M/S. ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1787/KOI/2008. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAIS E ANY OBJECTION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ITA NO. 1787/KOL/2008 IN THE CAS E OF M/S. ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. HAS OBSERVED AT PARA 12 IN PAGE 6 AS UNDER:- '12. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ID. OR THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SLP (CIVIL) 22889 OF 2008 HAS STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WILL READJUDICATE THIS ISSUE AS PER DECISION OF THE HON' BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD . (SUPRA)'. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS POINT AND RESTO RE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FO R ADJUDICATION AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND R ESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AD JUDICATION AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). THIS GROUND OF APPEA L OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WEL L AS THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF T HE SRB & ASSOCIATES LLP (SUPRA), WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL PASSED IN THE SAID CASE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER THE DIRECTION AS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF M/S. SRBC & ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 6 ASSOCIATES LLP. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESS EES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON AC COUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR DIFFERENCE IN GENERAL LEDGER (GL) AND DETA ILED LEDGER (DL). 8. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH TH E RETURN OF INCOME, A SUM OF RS.4,00,000/- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERAL LEDGER BALA NCE AND DETAILED LEDGER BALANCE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID PROVISION WAS MADE AS PER TH E RBI GUIDELINES ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY AS DETECTED BETWEEN THE GENE RAL LEDGER AND DETAILED LEDGER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DI SALLOWED THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ON THE GROUND TH AT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO ALLOW THE SAME. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GENERAL LEDGER AND DETAILED LEDGER AS NOTED AT THE TIME OF COMPUTERISA TION WHICH HAPPENED IN THE YEAR 2004 HAVING NOT BEEN RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER LONG TIME, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PROVIS ION MADE FOR SUCH UN- RECONCILED DIFFERENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE ALSO AG REED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME T AX ACT FOR ALLOWING SUCH PROVISION. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND A LSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWE EN GENERAL LEDGER AND DETAILED LEDGER AS PER THE GUIDELINES OF THE RB I IS SUCH THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A PROVISION MADE FOR ANY OBLIG ATION OR LIABILITY. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 7 TAX ACT UNDER WHICH THE SAID PROVISION CAN BE ALLOW ED AS DEDUCTION. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DIFFERENCE I N ITS GENERAL LEDGER AND DETAILED LEDGER AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISM ISS GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 10. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012-13 BEING ITA NO. 1852/KOL/2016, WHICH INVOLVES A SOLITARY IS SUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR NPA. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 O F THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11, WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY DECIDED BY US, WE FOLLOW OUR CONCLUSION DRAWN IN A.Y. 2010-11 AND RESTORE THIS I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTE R VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012-13 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2 013-14 BEING ITA NO. 1853/KOL/2016. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 RAISED IN THI S APPEAL INVOLVE THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR NPA AS INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY US. FOLLOWING OUR CONCLUSION DRAWN IN A.Y. 2010-11, WE RESTORE THIS I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTE R VERIFYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEA L FOR A.Y. 2013-14, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELA TING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENERAL LEDGER AND DETAILED LEDGER IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN G ROUND NO. 5 OF THE ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 8 ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11, WHICH HAS ALREA DY BEEN DECIDED BY US. FOLLOWING OUR CONCLUSION DRAWN FOR A.Y. 2010-11, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 13. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2013-14 RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.16,58,820/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN WBSCB, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ALLAHABAD BANK, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE TO TAX IN A.Y. 2014-15 ON RECEIPT BASIS. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT SIN CE THE INCOME SO OFFERED IN A.Y. 2014-15 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DE PARTMENT, THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, I.E. A.Y. 2013-14 HAS RESULTED INTO DOUBLE ADDITION. THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES VERIF ICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. AND SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OB JECTION IN SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING OFFERED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO TAX IN A.Y. 2014-15 ON RECEIPT BASIS. IF IT IS F OUND ON SUCH VERIFICATION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALREADY ASSESSED TO TAX IN A.Y. 2014-15 AND THE MATTER HAS REACHED ITS FINALITY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL DELETE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGL Y TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2012-13 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHILE THE APPEALS OF THE ITA N OS. 1851, 1852 & 1853/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 10-2011, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 9 ASSESSEE FOR A.YS. 2010-11 AND 2013-14 ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 24, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) THE MIDNAPUR PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ALIGANJ, POST OFFICE-MIDNAPORE, DIST. PASCHIM MIDNAPORE-721101, WEST BENGAL (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, MIDNAPORE, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLKA TA, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.