M/s. Charotar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

ITA 2043/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9148 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA A GARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AARTI N SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 80P

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ./ I.T.A. NO. 2043/AHD/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. CHIMAN SATHI BHAVAN, SUBHASH ROAD, ANAND - 388 001 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ANAND ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFC3231A ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : AARTI N. SHAH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA AGARWAL, CIT.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 12/12/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/12/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-4, VADODAR A (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 26.06.2017 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2016 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UND ER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 20 14-15. ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-4, VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE NON-ALLOWANCE OF NET LOSS OF RS.2,30 ,38,064/- AND DETERMINING GROSS INTEREST RECEIPT AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -4, VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T NET LOSS BE NOT TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS WITH RIGHT TO C ARRIED FORWARD LOSSES. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -4, VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED OF RS. 10,76,097/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-4, VADODARA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS NOT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ITS INCOME WAS NOT AVAILABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEA RNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO.1, 2 & 3 THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY IT S OWN CASE IN AY 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 2678/AHD/2015 ORDER DATED 28/11/2017. ELABORATING FURTHER, THE LEARNED AR SU BMITTED ON FACTS THAT ASSESSEE BANK IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CO-OPERATIVE BANKING CREDIT FACILITY. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAS SUS PENDED ASSESSEES LICENSE FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY ON 30 .07.2003. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE DERIVED THE IMPUGNED INCOM E BY RECOVERING ITS OLD DUES FROM ITS MEMBERS/CUSTOMERS IN THE FORM OF PRINCIPAL AS WELL AS INTEREST. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT EVEN AFTER THE CANCELLATION OF BANKING LICENSE, THE ACTI VITY OF RECOVERY OF PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST HAS TO BE REGARDED AS BUSINES S ACTIVITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE BENEFIT AND RIGHT ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. AS A SE QUEL THERETO, ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 - DEDUCTION TOWARDS DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE, EXPENSES, SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES IS ELIGIBLE TO ASSESSEE AS PER LA W. 4. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS ALREADY AD JUDICATED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 3. IT EMERGES FROM ASSESSEE'S PLEADINGS THAT IT RA ISES THREE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE(S) IN PRINCIPLE. THE FIRST ONE IS COMMON WHEREIN IT SEEKS TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES' ACTION TREATI NG ITS ALLEGED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.2,36,05,880/-, RS.2,54,90,395 /- AND RS.6,78,18,287/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2010 -11 AND 2011-12; RESPECTIVELY, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN BUS INESS INCOME. WE ADVERT TO THE RELEVANT FACTS QUA THE INSTANT ISSUE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (BANKING SECTOR REGU LATORY BODY) HAD SUSPENDED ASSESSEE'S LICENSE ON 30.07.2003. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE DERIVED THE IMPUGNED INCOME BY RECOVERING ITS OLD DUES FROM ITS MEMBERS/CUSTOMERS IN THE FORM OF PRINCIPAL AS WELL AS INTEREST. WE NOTICE FROM IDENTICAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FACING WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS THROUGH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. HE THEREFORE WAS OF TH E OPINION THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS ENGAGED IN BANKING BUS INESS SO AS TO BE ENTITLED FOR GETTING TREATED THE ABOVE INCOME AS BU SINESS. HE THEREFORE TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER CONCLUDING THAT THE ABOVE RECEIPTS OF INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND ITS OWN ADVANCES DURING LIQUIDATION PERIOD WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO BUSINESS REC EIPTS. 4. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTI ON AS UNDER:- '4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WEL L AS THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. DURI NG THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATE D 05.09.2013, THE APPELLANT'S AR WAS REQUESTED TO FILE COPY OF OR DER APPOINTING THE LIQUIDATOR. THE SAME WAS FILED ON 05/12/2013. T HE APPELLANT'S MAIN SUBMISSION IS THAT EVEN AFTER THE CANCELLATION OF ITS BANKING LICENSE, IT REMAINS A CREDIT CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY AND HENCE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) O F THE ACT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LIQUIDATOR HAS BEEN APPOINT ED UNDER SECTION 107-108 OF THE GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCIETY CAN TAKE PLACE U/S 110(10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, FROM THE OR DER DATED 28.03.2007 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY , GUJARAT STATE, IT IS SEEN THAT NO SUCH RECONSTRUCTION AS PE R SECTION 19 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT IS MENTIONED IN THIS O RDER. FOR READY REFERENCE THE ORDER OF THE REGISTRAR IS REPRO DUCED BELOW: 'PREFACE:- ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - THE CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, ANAND D IST. ANAND IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PROTECTED WITH UNSURANCE AN D REGISTERED UNDER THE CLAUSE - 1961 OF GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOC IETIES. IT'S REGISTRATION NO. 4368, DATED 30-11-1974. THE SAID B ANK HAS DOING THE MANAGEMENT AS PER CO-OPERATIVE RULES, SUB -CLAUSES, BANKING REGULATING ACT-1949 PROVISION AND AS PER GU IDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS TIME TO TIME GIVEN BY CO-OPERATIVE DEP ARTMENT AS WELL RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AS PER FIXED AND CHANGED . DUE TO CONSTRUCTIVE INSPECTION OF THE BANK AND SLOW RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE BANK IT IS PUT IN CRITICAL CONDITION AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY TO REINSTALL IT AND AS PER THE ORDER DATED 2/1/2002 THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS DEPUTED IN THE BANK. THERE ARE MANY ATTEMPTS MADE FOR RECOVERIES OF THE SAID BANK EVENTHOUGH THERE IS NO RECOVERIES MADE SATISFACTORY AND SO THA T IN THE REFERENCE OF ECONOMICAL CONITION OF THE BANK AS PER PROPER CONCLUSION IT IS RECOMMENDED TO THIS OFFICE TO PUT THE BANK IN DISPOSAL CONDITION, AND IN THIS REFERENCE THE SAID OFFICE MADE PROPER CONCLUSION AND DECLARE TO PUT THE BANK IN DI SPOSAL CONDITION BY THE LETTER DATED 23/7/03 OF THE INDIAN RESERVE BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI AND THE ORDER TO PUT THE BAN K IN DISPOSAL CONDITION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL FOR THE I NTEREST OF DEPOSITORS AND SHARE HOLDERS BY GRANTED THE PERMISS ION. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS UNDER: ' ;: ORDER:- I.A.S. KHANDHAR, JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETIES, GUJARAT STATE, GANDHINAGAR AS PER OBTAINED AN AUTHO RITY TO ME AND I ORDER TO UPT THE CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BAN K LTD., ANAND, DIST. ANAND AS PER CLAUSE - 1961 PROVISIONS. AND HEREBY DEPUTE TO SHRI C.B. KOTECHA AS A DISPOSAL OFFICER, DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES, ANAND AND PRESENT ADMIN ISTRATOR OF THE CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ANAND, DIST . ANAND. (2) THE DEPUTED DISPOSAL OFFICER MUST TO COMPLETE T HE ACTIVITY OF CLOSING BANK WITHIN A THREE YEARS ACCORDING TO THE CO-OPERATIVE RULES CODE-114 (1) OF REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TIES ANAND AS PER INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY TIME TO TIME. (3) THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR MUST TO TAKE CHARGE IMM EDIATELY OF DISTPOSAL CONDITION. AND THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR SH ALL PRODUCE THREE MONTHS REPORT OF HIS ACTIVITIES TO THE REGIST RAR, CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GUJARAT STATE, GANDHINAGAR UPT O 15TH BEFORE COMPLETION OF THREE MONTHS.' 4.3.1. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE BANK WAS IN CRITICAL CONDITION AND THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY TO REINSTALL IT AND ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PUT IN DISPOSAL CONDITION FOR T HE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS FOR THE INTEREST OF THE DEPOSIT ORS. AS PER THIS ORDER ONLY, AN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS APPOINTED. ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 - 4.3.2 THUS, THIS ORDER FOR APPOINTING OF LIQUIDATOR U/S 115(1)(2) OF THE GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1961 IS FO R THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 19 OF THE GCSA, 1961 ARE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 19 RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETIES. -WHERE A COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT IS PROPOSED (A) BETWEEN A SOCIETY AND ITS CREDITORS, OR (B) BETWEEN A SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS THE REGISTRAR MAY, ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SOCIET Y OR OF ANY MEMBER OR OF ANY CREDITOR OF THE SOCIETY, OR IN THE CASE OF A SOCIETY WHICH IS BEING WOUND UP OF THE LIQUIDATOR, ORDER RECONSTRUCTION IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, OF THE SOCIETY. 4.3.3. THUS, FROM THIS PROVISION, IT IS EVIDENT THA T FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSTRUCTION, A SEPARATE ORDER HAS TO BE PASSE D BY THE REGISTRAR. THE APPELLANT HAS NO WHERE SUBMITTED THA T SUCH AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. HENCE, DURING THE FY 2009-10 , THE APPELLANT SOCIETY WAS UNDER LIQUIDATION ONLY AND HE NCE, THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE CASES OF IND RAPRASTH STEEL INDUSTRY LTD. (SUPRA), MORBI MERCANTILE BANK LTD. ( SUPRA) AND VIJAYLAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. SINCE, NO BUSINESS HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THIS YEAR, HENCE, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IT CONTINUE D TO BE CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. BESIDES , THE AO'S CONCLUSION THAT ONCE THE BANKING LICENSE HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND THE LIQUIDATOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED , FOR WINDING UP THE APPELLANT SOCIETY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE S OCIETY IS ALSO CORRECT. 4.4. HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE APPE LLANT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N U/S 80P AT THIS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS UPHELD.' THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ABOVE FINDINGS PERTAIN ING TO FORMER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN LATER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AS WELL. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE TREATED AS SESSEE'S ABOVE INCOME DERIVED FROM ITS MEMBERS QUA PAST DUES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME THAN THE ONE FROM OTHER SOURCES. HER FURTHER CASE IS THAT IT IS ONLY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BANK WHICH HAS GONE IN THE HANDS OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. SHE PLACES ON RECORD TH E STATE GOVERNMENT'S DECLARATION UNDER CLAUSE 161 GRANTING EXTENSION UND ER SECTION 114 (1) OF THE GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL THEREAFTER PLACES STRONG RELIANCE ON THIS TRIBUNAL'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANAND ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 - URBAN CO- OP. BANK LTD VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2731/AHD/2 013 DECIDED ON 29.05.2017 TREATING SIMILAR INCOME UNDER THE HEAD B USINESS. NEXT CASE LAW QUOTED IS HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF MORVI MERCANTILE BANK LTD VS. CIT, REPORTED IN [1976] 104 ITR 568 (GUJ.). 6. THE REVENUE AT THIS STAGE STRONGLY SUPPORTS BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES' ACTION TREATING ASSESSEE'S ABOVE INCOM E NOT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS BUT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. MR. KABR A REFERS TO THE CIT(A)'S FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT DEP OSITED ITS ABOVE RECEIPTS FROM MEMBERS IN THE BANK AND THEREAFTER DE RIVED THE IMPUGNED INCOME AS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE HON'BLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT DECISION. HE FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A DETAILED BIFURCATION OF ABOVE INCOME DERI VED FROM MEMBERS VIS--VIS INTEREST ARISING OUT OF ITS DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK IN QUESTION. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE FAI LS TO REBUT THIS FACTUAL POSITION. THE FACT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT THE ABOVE BIFURCATION OF ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS VERY MUCH NECESSARY FOR ADJUDI CATING THE INSTANT ISSUE. THE ABOVE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION HAS ALR EADY HELD A SIMILAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK TO BE ENTITLED FOR ITS INCOME REC EIVED FROM MEMBERS DURING THE SUSPENSION OF LICENSE AS BUSINESS INCOME . WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOUL D BE SERVED IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONCE AGAIN RE- ADJUDICATES THE EN TIRE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. IT SHALL BE ASSESSEE'S DUTY AND RESPONSIBI LITY TO FURNISH ALL PARTICULARS OF ITS IMPUGNED BIFURCATION OF INCOME U NDER THE ABOVE TWO HEADS. THIS FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS TAKEN AS AC CEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ITA NO.2678/AHD/2015 FOR A Y 2008-09 RAISING THIS SOLE ISSUE IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 8. THE ASSESSEE'S NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN LATTER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS SEEKING ADJUSTMENT OF ABOVE BUSINESS INCOME AGAINST CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES IS TREATED AS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATU RE AS POINTED OUT AT BOTH THE PARTIES BEHEST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHAL L ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFTER FINALIZING THE ABOVE FIRST ISSUE. THIS PLEA I N LATER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ALSO ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. THE ASSESSEE'S NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ASSESS MENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 PLEADS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING ITS DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.16,86,457/- A ND RS.14,90,568/- AS DEDUCTION IN ASSESSMENT AS AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES ARE AD IDEM THAT T HIS ISSUE IS ALSO CONSEQUENTIAL TO OUR ADJUDICATION HEREINABOVE QUA F IRST ISSUE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FINALIZE THE CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION AFTER DETAILED ADJUDICATION ON THE FIRS T ISSUE OF BUSINESS INCOME IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. THIS SUBSTANTIVE GRO UND IS ALSO TAKEN AS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE ASSESSEE'S THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AVERS THAT THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERR ED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN TREATING CLOSING BALANCE DIFFERENCE OF ORIENTAL BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED THEREBY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.16,86, 457/-. LEARNED ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 7 - COUNSEL FIRST OF ALL STATES THAT THE CORRECT FIGURE HEREIN IS RS.12,26,300/- THAN THE ABOVE ONE. SHE THEREAFTER T AKES US TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT FINDINGS WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUOTED ITS FAILURE IN RECONCILING THE CORRESPONDING BANK ACCOU NT DESPITE NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE T HEREAFTER FILED ITS RECONCILIATION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. PAGE 19 OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO RECONCILE THE D IFFERENCE IN BANK ACCOUNT VIS--VIS BALANCE FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6-07 ONWARDS TILL 2012-13. IT THEREAFTER PLEADED THAT THE AMOUNT RECE IVED FROM DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION ('DICGC' IN SHORT) STOOD DEPOSITED IN THE ABOVE ORIENTAL BANK ACCOUNT FOLLOW ED BY THE NECESSARY CHEQUES BEING ISSUED TO THE DEPOSITORS IN GUJARAT A S WELL AS OUTSIDE THE STATE. ITS CASE THEREAFTER WAS THAT THE ABOVE SAID CORPORATION'S LETTER DATED 09.08.2004 HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE CORRESP ONDING AMOUNT LYING UNDISBURSED WOULD BE REFUNDED BACK. THE CIT(A ) HOWEVER REJECTS ALL THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFTER CONCLUDING T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AND TH EREFORE THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT FOR ENTERTAINING THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE RIVAL PLEADINGS REITERATING RESPECTIVE STANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS THE REVENUE. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE'S BANKING LICE NSE STANDS SUSPENDED. IT IS RIGHT NOW BEING MANAGED BY AN OFFI CIAL LIQUIDATOR. WE THEREFORE OBSERVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF COH ESION IN ITS WORKING SO FAR AS FILING OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE INSTANT ISSUE IS CONCERNED. THE FACT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT THE INSTAN T ISSUE IS MORE A RECONCILIATION FAILURE ON ASSESSEE'S PART TO TALLY THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT WITH ITS BALANCE-SHEET VIS- -VIS THE AMOUN TS RECEIVED/REFUNDED AS PER THE ABOVE DICGC DIRECTIVES. WE REITERATE THA T WE HAVE ALREADY REMITTED ALL REMAINING ISSUES INCLUDING THE MAIN ON E (SUPRA) BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUFFICE TO SAY, IT WOULD BE IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZ ES THE INSTANT RECONCILIATION AS PER LAW. WE CAST THE ENTIRE DUTY ON THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN CONSEQU ENTIAL PROCEEDINGS. THESE THREE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS ITA NOS.2678/AHD/201 5, 786/AHD/2014 & 186/AHD/2016 ARE ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 5. IN PARITY, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE IS, ACCORDINGLY, REQUIRED TO CORROBORATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. THE ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. 6. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 2043/AHD/17 [M/S. CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - 7. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITT ED THAT GROUND NO.4 IS NOT PRESSED. THE GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 21/12/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21/12/2 018